EDUCATION - KEEPING THEM HONEST

EVIDENCE OF BIAS, MANIPULATION, BULLYING, MISCONDUCT & A CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP IN THE SELECTIVE SCHOOLS UNIT AND DET

I have been asked  present some evidence to support my allegations of systematic bias, manipulation of test scores and selective school applications and a conspiracy to cover up. 

Our allegations are that the process was maniuplated at every step of the process. We cannot prove that the original scores were manipulated as the SSU destroyed the original answer sheets but there are other steps in the Selective School process.  We can show that after the Selection Commitees met and made their decisions  to award our children a score and offer our children a place that Magda Pollak accessed our children's application and changed their scores and took away their place and she did this out out of malice and in order to do harm. 

In the first instance I have provided details of my daughters and sons 2002 Selective High School Application. It should be noted that I have similar evidence with regard to Opportunity Class and Selective HIgh SChool applications and matters in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 - involving my four children at different times.

SELECTIVE HIGH SCHOOL PLACEMENT FOR ELDEST DAUGHTER 2002 FOR ENTRY IN 2003 - (IQ -160-165)

On the outset my daughter achieved selective school test scores that did not represent any of her normal high achievements or how she felt she went on the day.   Her school marks had been assessed at 92% and 97% at the time.  The letter advising of marks showed component scores that did not add up see here; We requested the original answer sheets so as to verify the test marks but the Selective Schools Unit destroyed the answer sheets on the day the matter was for Planning meeting at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal despite the original answer sheets being specifidally requested to be set aside under FOI..

The entry noted on the official data file produced under FOI in November 2002 and November 2005 states the following results from the Selection Committee deliberations.

8/8/02:  "St George Girls High School Selection Committee:  Recommend I/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT = 232.19. See attached.

This calculation of the score of 232.19 has been signed for and confirmed by more than one Selection Committee members see here and the correct score and this information is also present on Katie's Data file produced under FOI in November 2002 and November 2005.

HOWEVER -  IN AN ENTRY DATED 12/9/82 (after the Selection Committee met)  IN A copy of a DATA FILE dated 4/9/02 THAT  WE RECEIVED STUCK BY A PAPER CLIP TO THE CHILDREN'S MARKS RESULTS LETTER IT STATES THE FOLLOWING:

12/8/02:  Calculation above based on error.  The calculation should have been 1/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT.  This would result in a score of 214.26.  Selection Committees to be advise - see attached (Page 1, Page 2, <page 3">This entry calculating 1/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT as 214.26 instead of 232.19 did not appear on any data files produced under FOI.  All the documents produced under FOI show the higher score as the calculation.  However the lower score of 214.26 was presented to the Appeals panel by Magda Pollak as the calculation of Katie's score.  This score meant that Katie lost her appeal to Sydney Girls High.  A score of 232.19 would have meant that she was successful for a place .

Recent documents produced under FOI confirm that Magda Pollak changed both Danny and Katies test scores to lower scores after the Selection Committee members met and these scores meant that they were unsuccessful for offers into the schools of their choice.  Documents also clearly show that apart from providing incorrect scores to the Appeals panel Magda Pollak also presented. biased, false and misleading information to the Appeals panel on which to base their decision. 

SELECTIVE HIGH SCHOOL PLACEMENT FOR ELDEST SON 2002 FOR ENTRY IN 2003

His profile score was assessed at 192.04..  His test scores did not reflect his normal achievement and in the letter advising of marks there are issues and discrepancies that include scores that do not add up - see attached. He had provided two different IQ tests that both put his IQ over 150 together with substantial evidence of academic merit in external University test results and his school reports

This profile score of 192.04 was enough for him to be considered by the Selection Committees and in the letter sent to us advising of the test results it stated "The Selection Committee considered further information provided and adjusted your child's score to 199.92.   

However, the entry on the official data file produced under FOI it states the following result from the Selection Committees considerations:-

5/8/02:  "Caringbah School  Selection Committee adjusted score to 213.33 on the basis of 1/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT = 199.92.  See attached.

We challenged the fact that there were two scores noted.  Documents produced under FOI that included the IQ Equivalent chart used by the Selective Schools Unit support the calculation of the score of I/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT as 213.33 and not 199.92.

Recent evidence produced under FOI, in a document that was printed on 31/7/02 (the date the Selection Committee met), on the Caringbah HIgh School Selection Committee list and register it shows that the score that the Selection Committee allocated was 213.33.  With this score it shows that he would have been unsuccessful for Sydney Boys but successful for Caringbah High (SBHu) (CARo)

However you will note that on a hand written entry on the Lists and Register it then states: SEE MAGDA - MOVED TO RESERVE LIST BECAUSE CALCULATION WAS WRONG! . See attached.

In a document that was printed on 9/8/02 (the date that Sydney Boys Selection Committee met) on the Sydney Boys Selection Committee lists and register it shows once again that the score that the Selection Committee allocated was 213.33 - see attached.   With a score of 213.33 Danny would have been unsuccessful for Sydney Boys High but successful for Caringbah High (SBHu) (CARo).  

For the year 2002/2003 the minimum cut of scores for Sydney Boys was 215 and for Caringbah High was 201 - see attached.

The hand written entry moving him to the reserve list is not dated but given that on the 9/8/02 the score still presents as 213.33 in the official records this confirms that Danny  was removed from the 'offer' list and placed on the 'reserve' list after the Selection Committees made their decision and that Magda Pollak changed his score. 

We appealed the decision.  Magda Pollak presented an Appeal Analysis to the Appeals panel which presented biased personal opinions and a misrepresentation of the facts and presented the changed lower score of 199.92 as the profile score and recommended that there be no adjustment made. 

The process was tampered with and corrupted and is flawed.

Below is details of the conspiracy to cover up the allegations. 

In August 2002 we took the Selective Schools Unit (SSU) to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) to get access to the original answer sheets and test papers so as to verify the test marking and marks, amongst other things.  On the day of the planning meeting we were advised that the DET had decided to destroy the original answers sheets so that I could not verify the marks.  They destroyed the answer sheets despite the original documents being specifically requested to be set aside and produced under FOI.    Thing was that we were making allegations that the applications had been tampered with and manipulated at every different stage of the selection process.

On the 4.8.2003 we received a letter from the Minister for Education stating that our allegations would be subject to an investigation and that we would be contacted in relation to same.  This investigation has never taken place.

At the hearing in August 2003 we came to some agreements with the DET.  See letter from Crown Solicitor dated 18.8.2003.  These agreements are still outstanding to date.

On the 27th August 2008 we attended the premises of the Department to view the tests.  At that viewing my children and I were bullied, harrassed and intimidated until we left in tears.

This leter dated 19.12.2003 from Mr. Refshauge to Mr. Brogden is the letter that has been continiously referred to as having been the letter that indicates to me that the matter is closed.  However this letter is not addressed to me.  It is an internal letter between Ministers. I was not advised that the matter was closed and I was never advised that I had been deemed vexatious by the Minister.  I was advised that the matter would be subjected to a formal investigation.  I was also awaiting the DET to honour the agreements that they promised on the morning of the hearing at the ADT to provide information and documents.

This is a copy of a letter that I forwarded to Mr. Refshauge on Page 1, Page 2  advising him of the treatment of my children at the viewing, advising him of the inappropriate comments made to me by DET staff and enclosing copies of 'so called' certified true and accurate copies of my children's test results that the DET sent had sent at my request on 15 October 2003 after they destroyed the original answer sheets.  These test results showed inconsistancies and errors.

This is a copy of a file not from John Murn, Chief Legal Officer dated 2.6.2004 in relation to enquiries he made about the investigation of the original complaints as promised by Mr. Refshauge on 4/8/03.  You will note that it states that there was no investigation.

This is a copy of a letter I forwarded to Mr. John Murn dated 11.6.2004 Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4  with regard to outstanding issues in relation to the matters agreed upon at the ADT in August 2003.

This is  a file note from Mr. John Murn dated 22 June 2004  that refers to Magda Pollak, one of the persons against whom formal allegations were made, preparing a response to my letter and that also refers to the fact that my children were upset at the viewing.  You will note that she blames me for that when in fact they were the ones who were intimidating, harrassing and bullying them.  My children just wanted to check their tests and we were lead to believe that they could do that in a secure and safe environment.

This is an email from John Murn to Magda Pollak dated 24.6.2004 in which John Murn states that he has taken the liberty of presuming that they do not want to investigate the matter and that he is going to ignore me with regard to the test papers and that refers to the investigation ordered by Mr. Refshauge.

This is a file note from Mr. John Murn dated 5.7.2004

This is an email from Mr. John Murn to Bob Wingrave dated 5.7.2004

This is an email from John Murn to Chris Ballentime from Audit Directorate dated 9.8.2004 in response to an email to Audit Directorate (noted below the email) with regard to fresh allegations my family made after receiving documents under FOI with regard to our sons 2003 Selective HIgh School Application and our daughters 2003 Ella test that showed evidence of bias and discrimination.  This email confirms that an investigation never happened and refers to me as being deemed vexatious by the Minister.  No formal process has ever been undertaken to deem me vexatious.

This is a file note from John Murn dated 13.8.2004 stating that the Audit Directorate have decided not to investigate my families fresh new allegations.  This is despite the fact that all evidence shows that my families original allegations have never been investigated and that these are different instances.

This is an email from John Murn to Bob Wingrave dated 13.8.2004

This is a file note from John Murn dated 23 August 2004 with regard to the matter.

This is an email from John Murn to Bob Wingrave dated 24.8.2004

This is a note from John Murn dated 26.8.2004 setting out details of matter.

This is a file note from John Murn dated 30.6.2004 that indicates that Magda has stated that there should be no reviewing of the tests.  It also states that Chris Carrol indicated that the viewing of the test at which my children were present and were harrassed, bullied and intimidated was deemed the 'investigation'?   

This is a letter to me from Audit Directorate in response to the fresh allegations made in relation to my sons 2003 Selective School Application and with regard to allegations of bias in the marking of my daughers Ella Test.  Page 1, Page 2.  You will note that despite all the emails and file notes above stating that the original complaints had not been investigated, these fresh complaints were not accepted on the basis that they refered to similar allegations as before and they had been investigated and closed!   It should also be noted that I did contact the DET with regard to having a meeting with Bob Wingrave and advised that I would require a Solicitor present given the seriousness of the complaints and the evidence before me.  They would not agree.

This is an email that was produced under FOI that sets out a process of changing the State Record Act that the tests and answers were under so as to destroy them Page 1, Page 2

There are many more other issues and misrepresenations in these documents that I could refer to but I will focus on these for the time being.

I have similar documents in relation to my other children and in relation to other applications.

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TRIBUNAL DECISION NO 1

A decision has been handed down today (22 May 2009) at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal in relation to an FOI application seeking access to an investigation into allegations that the DET have said has taken place.  I didn't get to see the decision before it was made public.   I will of course be appealling and taking this matter to the Supreme Court.   Although their might be a substantial number of records as the DET have been trying their best to cover up these complaints  (there have been at least 8 different complaints involving different children and years) this on it's own is not enough to deny the application and to not even attempt to collect the documents as Mr. Montgomery clearly stated that he agreed with my assertion that the majority of documents would be in the same spot.  So on the basis of maybe some documents being elsewhere and needing to be found he rejected the application agreeing with the DET that it would be an unreasonable diversion of resources?  It could well be that there are no documents in these other locations and the shredder has arrived first.  Documentation in relation to the investiation of formal complaints needs to be kept as per record keeping requirements and they should have to produce these documents.  The request is not in any way substantial given the situation or unreasonable as it is a child protection matter and therefore an appeal will be lodged

Here are my initial thoughts.   This was an application to get access to documents from the DET that relate to formal complaints that we made initially against the Leader of the Selective Schools Unit  (Magda Pollak) and subsequently against other Units in the DET who were not properly doing their job as per policy and procedure require and whose failure to afford us procedural fairness and natural justice put children at risk of harm whilst protecting persons employed in high positions in the DET who had prejudice,  were biased and who were bullies and who were failing in their duty of care.

 

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adtjudgments/2009nswadt.nsf/f1a6baff573a075dca256862002912ec/8762f72a3229ed36ca2575bd0002639e?OpenDocument

 

If you cannot access the site through the link just go to the Administrative Decisions Website and follow the Decisions tab in the General Division.

 

It is unbelievable that the DET can say that it will be an unreasonable diversion of resources to get documents that by Law we should be entitled to.  The DET have used the so called 'investigation' to ignore subsequent allegations and complaints even aimed at other members of our family and relate to victimisation, bullying, neglect and misconduct.   It is unbelievable that this determination to deny such important documents can be upheld by a Tribunal on the basis that it will be an unreasonable diversion of resources to provide the investigation reports espeically when the Tribunal is supposed to be there to protect the little people from being stepped on by the big guns.   

It seems that the more public servants spread the paper work around, the less detailed records they keep, the more lies that they tell and the more people that they involve then the more chances they have of being protected and being able to cover up matters of misconduct, bullying, neglect,  fraud and even corruption.

 

It is so interesting the way that the decision is written.  At number 41 of my original submission that was in response to the DET's submission and I was answering their headings that was filed in the ADT it says

41.       Procedural fairness is something that is of significant public interest and concern

40        Concerned citizens using FOI have a valid and important role to play in scrutinizing government conduct and promoting accountability.

Whether the DET provided adequate justification in its statement of reasons.

42        The safety well being and protection of children is of paramount concern and the           

DET have a duty of care to protect children.    I do not believe that the DET have provided adequate justification in its Statements/Submissions.

The ADT have written that part of my submission in the decision like this:

    41 Concerned citizens using FOI have a valid and important role to play in scrutinizing government     conduct and promoting accountability.

    40. Procedural fairness is something that is of significant public interest and concern. Whether the     DET provided adequate justification in its statement of reasons.

    42 The safety well being and protection of children is of paramount concern and the DET have a duty     of care to protect children. I do not believe that the DET have provided adequate justification in its     Statements/Submissions.

Whether the DET provided adequate justification in its statement of reasons" is a heading' and should have been numbered (n) it is not supposed to be at the end of the sentence where it presents.  It completely changes the context. 

You have to wonder how they would make such a significant mistake.  I have written to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal asking that they amend the decision to properly reflect what was said.

I  find it hard to believe how systematic psychological abuse, bullying and neglect of children served by members of the Department of Education cannot be correctly regarded as a child protection issue.  Our children are not safe.

For the record -  IN relation to the first part of the FOI application that dealt with a request for access to the documents that show the formal process used to deem me vexatious as has been presented by members of the DET  I didn’t pursue the Vexatious section of the FOI application because I was provided with a letter from the DET in response to my application that clearly said that I have never been formally deemed vexatious by the Minister or by anybody in the DET.   There is an Amendment application waiting for a decision to be handed down in relation to Amending the records.  Magda Pollak (the person whom we allege is responsible) is the one who presented me in Submissions to Ministers as vexatious and to others that I had been deemed  vexatious by the Minister when in reality the person who put that label on me was Magda Pollak and she did it to discredit me and protect herself so that they did not have to  investgiate the complaints and she did it because she is a bully and she wanted to discredit me to cover up her misconduct.  The DET know this but still she is promoted and sits at the helm at her job.   I only found out I was presented as having been deemed vexatious in documents that were produced under FOI last year.   I was not given a chance to defend myself.  I was not ever directly told by the DET – they just kept filing our correspondence away and treating us like dirt, presenting the matter as invesitgated when this is a lie and  me an angry mother who was vexatious so that we present as not having any evidence and trying to make trouble.   When in reality the problem is them!

Now the DET wants the public to  believe that if a person makes more than one complaint and those complained about find it annoying then they can just refer to the complainant as vexatious (in shorthand of course) and file their correspondence away regardless whether it is a legidimate complaint.  Never to be looked at again.

I will add to this as I absorb the information.

Being bullied doubles a child's psychotic chances

There is an interesting article in the paper today

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25438022-5001028,00.html

This doesn't surprise me.  When at the peak of the bullying and victimisation of my children I was seriously concerned about their mental health and well-being.  I informed the DET and they did nothing.  Despite the fact that I had told them so many times how these issues were impacting my children's health and well-being not once did anybody actually ask my children if they were alright and whether they needed any help or support.  No counseling was offered.   The response we got to our letter letting the DET know that this issue was causing emotional and psychological harm was that my son was targeted and victimised at his school.  He was formally accused of bullying an accusation that was later found to be a witch hunt and untrue as he wasn't even at school on that day (confirmed by the roll) and contrary to the teachers statements that said that they saw him do it.

The only reason that my children have come out the other side relatively okay and just with really bad memories and attitudes to school is because my husband and I have fought for them all the way.  

It is a sad system when the Education Department ignores the plight of children who are being victimised and bullied so as to protect the reputation of bureaucrats and Units in the Education system.

To date the issues have still not been resolved and this creates a situation where there is no closure.  Until there is closure we will continue our quest for Justice and accountability.

Evidence of others advising of corruption in the Selective Schools Unit

For the sake of those who think that if somebody makes allegations, and the right people hear about it that something will be done I attach a copy of a document from a Public Meeting at North Sydney in December 2002.

    

It is unfortunate that I am having trouble locating pages 2 and 3 although I do have them and rather than wait any longer as they do not refer to what I am writing about anyway I thought I would upload the pages that I have. This was a public meeting and there were a lot of people present.  As you will see from that document (it is also set out clearly in the other pages that I will locate and post as soon as I can) Gillian Skinner was there,  Barry O'Farrell was there, the media was there - just to name a few.   On page 4 there is an entry that states:

The Vice President of Hornsby Girls High Schools referred to a conspiracy in the Selective Schools Unit that is crippling the Selective High School system.

I did not know about this document until after I received my documents under FOI.  I had never met or spoken to the Vice President of the P & C.  However in January 2003 & 2004 when I wrote to the Gillian Skinner and Barry O'Farrell and even the newspapers about the evidence that I found of bias, manipulation and corruption in the Selective Schools Unit they did nothing even after I sent them and referred them to this document so that they could see that I wasn't alone, others were saying the same thing.   So in essence these people are guilty of bullying and abuse as if a person in a position of power sits back and does nothing when they are being advised that children are being systematically neglected, victimized and/or bullied (and it wasn't just my children) then they are as guilty as the person who is inflicting the harm - if not more as their duty is to protect the children.  Our Politicians  are a farce and the system is set up to protect adults to who abuse children and fail in their duty of care.

The fact that the system doesn't deal properly with complaints shouldn't work to discredit the complainant otherwise abusers will never pay and the only ones who will pay are their targets and/or victims.

HOW MUCH EVIDENCE IS ENOUGH TO RAISE SUSPICION?

I have decided to present a question to the public in relation to the process used to assess matters for investigation.

We have made formal allegations of bias, victimisation, bullying and misconduct against the leader of the Selective Schools Unit originally in relation to incidents in the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 and then subsequently in relation to incidents in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. 

We present hereunder details of the documents that we received that triggered the original complaint in 2002.

1.  Year 2000 OC test results for eldest son challenged. 

• So called 'certified true and accurate copies of test results forwarded by the DET, at our request, had inconsistancies and errors.  Documents produced by the Selective Schools Unit are incomplete and/or missing.   Formal complaints made against Leader of the Selective schools Unit.   Allegations not investigated.

2.  Year 2001 OC test results for eldest daughter challenged.  

• Data file and documents produced under FOI show evidence of bias, manipulation and  tampering.  Formal complaints made against Leader of Selective Schools Unit.  Allegations not investigated.

3.   Year 2002 Selective High School test results for eldest daughter and eldest son challenged.  

Documents produced under FOI show that for both our eldest son and eldest daughter the Leader of the Selective Schools Unit acessed the file after the Selection Commitees met and had made their decision and changed the marks for both my daughter and for my son to lower marks, under the guise of an error in calculation so that they would not be successful for selective school placement.  In the case of my son the leader of the Selective Schools unit physically took away his place in a Selective School and moved him to the Reserve list after the decision was made to offer him a place by the Selection Commitee members.  There is clear evidence of bias and manipulation.  Allegations were not investigated.

4.  In 2003 the original test papers were destroyed on the day the matter was for planning meeting at the ADministrative Decisions Tribunal with the full knowledge of the DET that these original documents had been requested to be produced under FOI and we were actively seeking these original documents so as to verify test marks.  The matter was being put before the Administrative Decision Tribunal as the DET would not obey the FOI rules in relation to the production of documents.   The fact that the Selective Schools Unit destroyed State Records that were requested under FOI seems not to matter to those in power within the system.  Our allegations were ignored and not investigated on the basis that I was a deemed a repetitive corresondent and was presented as vexatious by the person against whom the allegations were being made.

4.    From the Year 2000 to date all formal complaints that involve even our younger children and that refer to different incidents in the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 an 2008 are given to those whom we allege are targeting and inflicting this harm on our family to 'deal with'.  These people  have chosen a 'cover up' as a way of dealing with the complaint and the DET have taken no action to protect the children from further bullying or harm.

5.  For over 6 years we have been making formal requests that certain persons not be permitted to handle any school applications, tests or matters to do with our family including accessing documents requested under FOI as they have had serious formal allegations against them of bias, manipulation, tampering, bullying and misconduct - our requests are ignored.

6.  Recently we requested the Selection Commitee Registers (that the members sign on the day that they sat on the Selection Committee deliberations  to indicate that they have no conflict of duties and to show who was sitting on the commitee and these documents are not being produced.  These documents would clearly show what happened on the day of the meeting and what decisions were made.  These documents are said to not be able to be located. 

7.  Recently the Lists and reports in relation to the Selection Commitee meetings were produced but the Primary list that set out the outcomes  on the day the Selection Committees met is not the original list that was prepared and decided on the day.  The list that was produced is not the orignal document.  The DET says that they have produced what they have.  Documents are being withheld and destroyed. In certain documents that were produced it clearly shows that for both my eldest children their applications were accessed after the decision was made to offer them a place and their scores were changed to lower scores to deny them access and to discredit them.

8.   An FOI application was lodged seeking evidence by way of the report of the 'investigation' that the DET have said to have conducted and that they have referred to numerous times in order not to investigate even fresh complaints and allegations that involve the treatment of our other children.  The DET have refused to provide evidence of their 'alleged' investigation stating that it is an unreasonable diversion of resources.  This is despite the fact that they clearly say in briefings/submissions that investigations have taken place and that those with allegations against them have been cleared of any misconduct.  It is a fact that all evidence in our possession clearly says that this is not the case even to the point of written statements being made by the Legal Directorate and other Departments that we received under FOI that that clearly says that the allegations have never been investigated.  

9.  Despite the DET stating in numerous briefings and correspondence that the Ombudsman has investigated the matter (documents from the Ombudsman's office clearly say that the matter was not investigated under the Ombudsmans Act).  The DET  have said in evidence that they hold no documentary evidence of any conversation or any communications with the Ombudsman.  They say it is normal practice not to keep any correspondence in relation to any investigations by the Ombudman?

10.  The DET says that the Policy regarding how they should handle complaints are only guidelines and that they do not have to be followed.   They also say that not all allegations of abuse of children require to be 'investigated'   It appears that bullying and victmisation is ALLOWED and children being abused by adults are not protected.

11.  Policy Documents that relate to the process used for each period in relation to Selection Committee guidelines have gone missing and have not been produced.   

12.   Certain applications lodged by my children have been lost or cannot be located.

13.  The more they targeted our children and family the more we complained the power it gave them to discredit us and ignore our complaints.  The less records that they kept and the more records they destroyed the more power it gave them to cover the matter up.

You have to wonder what has to happen to trigger a proper and fair investigation into the actions of public servants.  It seems that in order to be afforded rights you have to do something criminal.

AFTER HOURS WITH MAGDA POLLAK LEADER NSW SELECTIVE SCHOOLS UNIT

On 11 November 2008 my family received some documents under FOI that the DET have been avoiding giving us for years.  The majority of the documents have been uploaded on the Overview of processes for Selective school placement to your right.  

 

For 8 years my family have been making allegations of systematic bias, bullying, vilification, victimization and manipulation and tampering of school applications, test marks and state records by the Selective Schools Unit and the DET and in particular Magda Pollak that have involved all our four children Danny, Katie, Amanda and John and that commenced in the Year 2000 after I made some complaints about the neglect of my children's education and has continued to date.  Our formal allegations also include a conspiracy to cover up.

 

As well as documents produced under FOI from 2002 to date consistantly show evidence of bias, manipulation and misconduct at the moment the situation is as follows:  

 

• On 18 July 2003 the original test answer sheets for Selective High School placement for Danny & Katie were destroyed.  They were destroyed despite the fact that we specifically requested that they be set aside and produced under FOI.  We wanted access to the original answer sheet so as to verify the test marks as the marks did not correspond with the children's usual very high performance and were such that they had to be seen to be believed.  The original documents were destroyed on the day the matter was for planning meeting at the ADT despite both ACER and the DET knowing that we had formally requested the original of the documents to be produced under FOI so as to verify test marks. This is in breach of the State Record Keeping Act and the FOI Act and could be interpreted as an attempt to ‘cover up.
• Documents provided yesterday under FOI headed Minimum Entry scores for OC 2000 to 2007 confirm that the score that Danny and Katie obtained for Year 5 Opportunity Class (203.46, Danny - 2000/01 and 208.14 Katie 2001/2002) were above the minimum entry score shown in the schedule produced under FOI for Caringbah North Public School.  Despite Danny being advised of a Maths mark that was unbelievable (25%) and Katie being advised of an English Mark that was unbelievable (45%), both tests in areas where the children were extremely gifted, the other scores were still high enough that their end profile score was enough to get them a place with Katie's GAT score in the test confirming her IQ was above 160 and Danny's GAT mark confirming his IQ was at 150.   These scores should have resulted in an offer of a place; this is confirmed in the List and Reports where it shows that the outcome for the student was an offer.  However both Danny & Katie were both advised that they were unsuccessful for first round offers, and they lost their appeals.  We asked to see Danny and Katie's original tests papers as the kids wanted to check the marks, however the originals answer sheets were destroyed whilst part of an FOI application being put before the Adminstrative Decisions tribunal.  When we were shown a "so called" certified true and accurate copies of our childrens answers and results there were too many answers to the amount of multiple choice questions.   When the kids attended the DET as our kids  wanted to see the tests and they could only get access in a supervised environment  we were bullied, intimidated and harrassed until we left in tears unable to check.  When we complained to the Minister we were ignored.

• In relation to Selective High School placement for Year 7 on a data file printed on 4/9/02, that was accidentally sent to us stuck by a paper clip to a letter dated 10 September 2002, a letter advising of Selective High School test marks that did not add up for both Danny and Katie, the entry in relation to the recommended profile score awarded by the Selection Committee on 8/8/02 is shown to be different to the entry present on the data file produced under FOI in November 2002 and November 2005.  There are also entries entered on this data file by Magda Pollak that change Katie's score from 232.19 to 214.26 under the guise of an error in calculation. These entries do not appear on any of the data files produced under FOI.

• On Katie’s data file printed on 17/9/02, received under FOI in November 2002, the score awarded by St George Girls Selection Committee was logged in an entry by EG on 8/8/02  at 15:11 as follows:  SGG SC : Recommend 1/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT = 232.19.  This score is confirmed in the Selection Committee Register and signed off and confirmed by more than one selection committee member.

NOTE:  Magda Pollak indicated, and it is set out in the transcript of evidence from the ADT in December 2005  that Elizabeth Gonzales, the person who was heading the Selection Committee meeting for St George Girls High and who calculated the scores for Katie was a junior and inexperienced and didn’t know ‘the right’ way to add up the scores and that she included 1/3 I/Q and 2/3 of the (PS) Profile score by mistake and that later Magda noticed this as she checked a few of these calculations and as a result changed the score to the lower score.   

Magda has also indicated in evidence that the entries regarding the changing of the score to the lower score were deleted by her “because there was no space and it was over – finished!” 

 

Magda Pollak also originally indicated on numerous occasions to the Minister, the Ombudsman and to others  that Danny’s score was calculated correctly using a calculation of 1/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT.

 

• However recently in the documents provided by Magda Pollak explaining the calculation of the different scores shown in the data files, Magda Pollak produced a document that states that Danny’s score was also initially calculated incorrectly and in the same wrong way as Katie’s and that is why two calculations are shown as his score?.   This second so called ‘incorrect’ calculation was made on a different day at a different Selection Committee meeting by a different person for a different school?  

• This seriously challenges what Magda has previously said and it begs the question, is the Selective Schools Unit really using inexperienced persons who do not know how to add up the scores to conduct and head Selection Committee meetings and why did two separate Selection Committee members on different days add the scores up exactly the same way initially and presented higher scores and why were they both then changed to lower scores after the event?  We understand that Magda said that Elizabeth Gonzales was a junior and that is why she made the mistake but we know that CY, the person noted in Danny’s data file as having entered the score, is a senior member of the DET by the name of Cynthia Wearne and we question whether she too would have made the same mistake?

NOTE:  In evidence at the ADT Magda Pollak  indicated that there were different ways that the IQ tests could be incorporated and that school and tests marks could be included or excluded or IQ tests results used at the discretion of the Selection Committee.

 

In the documents provided by in FOI -07-384  at  “Annexure E – page 4”,  in relation to Danny's Selective Schools application, it shows Danny as having been awarded by the Selection Committee as score of 213.33 and that this score meant he was successful for placement for Caringbah High School (CARo)  and then a handwritten entry says "see Magda" - moved to reserve list because calculation was wrong!

 

It appears clearly from the documents that Magda Pollak changed both Katie and Danny’s Selective  High School scores under the guise of an error in calculation to lower scores after the Selection Committees had met and made their decisions.  These lower scores meant that they were not successful for a place in their chosen school.

Of course when my youngest daughter Amanda applied for Opportunity Class in 2004/05 and then Selective High School placement in 2006/07 it happened again.   Once again Magda Pollak was permitted to 'deal with' my families applications despite formal requests that she not be permitted to have anything to do with the applications as their had been formal allegations made against her that we alleged were part of a conspiracy to cover up.  Once again documents produced under FOI show evidence of bias and misconduct.

Then when my youngest son applied for Opportunity Class in 2007/08 it happened again.

One discrepancy can be an accident, twice coincidence, any more times...its corruption.

Is it a co-incidence that Magda Pollak, the same person in the Selective Schools Unit, has been involved time and time again with these types of complaints and issues to do with my family?   Surely it is of serious concern given what continuously presents in the documents that formal allegations of bias and misconduct have been continuously made against this person and have been ignored?

 

There are so many discrepancies and issues over and above what is listed above in the documents and in relation to the handling of our complaints that need to be clarified and that seriously implicate the DET and in particular Magda Pollak.   I have evidence/documents to support every single thing that I say.  At every stage of this matter our family as been denied procedural fairness and natural justice and impartial and unbiased decisions. 

 

I cannot understand why so many people would allow a person like Magda Pollak who is engaging in behaviour that is curel and criminal to continue to head the Selective Schools Unit.    Magda Pollak appears to have a lot of friends in the system who are quite content to turn a blind eye.

 

I have two children who have just completed their HSC and because of the failure of the DET to deal with this matter and as a result of the DET having prepared and presented a ‘story’ about my children year after year that involved manipulating with their marks and scores we are seriously worried about the kids scores in the HSC.  

 

I realize that nobody is required to care about my children but I ask you to consider that we know of at least 2 other families who were dealt with the same way by Magda Pollak and one can only image how many more there could be given that she has been given the power to play god without question or challenge.

 

I am at present updating the "Overview of processes for Selective School Placement" - top right.  I will be uploading the relvant documents as soon as possible as my 'uploading assistant' is busy on her HSC vacation.

MEDIATION UNSUCCESSFUL

Well the website is back up.  I had pulled it down in anticipation that a mediation would resolve the issues brought up by my family and reach a resolution but all it has achieved is convinced me even more that we have to fight for justice and we have to fight for accountability because  Law abiding citizens should be entitled to rights as otherwise they are not protected and Public servants should not be above the Law. 

The battle continues to ensure that our Public system affords people procedural fairness and natural justice as without that we risk being run by crooks and bullies get away with pushing their weight around without a care in the world.

The system used by our Government to handle complaints/allegations is designed to protect them from having to answer and being made accountable.   Innocent people have no rights or protection.  We need a Royal Commission into complaint handling as this is from where accountability and integrity stems.