EDUCATION - KEEPING THEM HONEST

THE PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATIVE COVER UP

I would like to take a minute to present to you evidence of 'the process' of covering up complaints that is used by the Administrators of our Government and their friends/work colleagues employed in investigatory bodies and positions.

I have attached a scanned copy of a letter reference number  RML 03/5996.  This letter is dated 4 August 2003 and it refers to my letter to the Minister for Education dated 24 June 2003;  it is addressed to me,  it is on letterhead and it was signed by the Minister for Education at the time, Mr. Refshauge.  In this letter it states that our families complaints and allegations would be dealt with in accordance with the Responding to Suggestions, Complaints & Allegations policy.  This policy clearly states that allegations of the type and nature made by our family are to be subject to a formal investigation and that the negotiation procedure is not applicable.  On the basis of this letter we believed that a formal investigation had been commenced into our complaints and allegations.

I have attached a scanned copy of a draft letter with the same reference number as above  RML 03/5996.  This letter is a draft/copy,  it is not on letter head, it is not dated and it is not signed but it has the exact same reference number as the letter that was sent to me on 4 August 2003 above. 

This draft copy of the letter is not a legitimate copy of the original letter from Mr Refshauge with reference RML 03/5996.  The original letter says that our complaints will be investigated.   This fabricated letter says that the complaints have already been investigated and not just by the DET but also by the Ombudsman as well.  These are blatant lies.

I have attached a copy of a scanned  Email from John Murn to Chris Ballentine hand-dated 6.8.2004. This email clearly states that the Minister for Education promised an investigation into our allegations and that no investigation had been undertaken by the DET or by the Ombudsman.

Despite the Audit Directorate of the DET being clearly told by John Murn that the earlier allegations made by my family had not been investigated, I received a letter from the Audit Directorate saying that our families fresh allegations of bias and victimisation would not be investigated as they were similar allegations to those that we had previously made and that these allegations had been investigated and closed.

I sent the Ombudsman the letter-head signed version of RML 03/5996 and the DET sent him the draft version. I had never seen or received a copy of the version provided by the DET before being provided a copy by the Ombudsman.  Guess which version the Ombudsman Mr. Bruce Barbour chose as the 'legitimate version of  RML 03/5996 and that he used to support his decision to not investigate our fresh allegations of further instances of bullying and victimisation aimed at our children and family?  I had also sent the Ombudsman a copy of the email from John Murn dated 6 August 2004 as well as other evidence to support our allegations.

Of course the person whom they wanted me to see to explain 'the process'  was one of the main persons implicated in this matter and against whom formal allegations of bias, bullying and victimisation had been made.  This person had already told me previously when I asked for a Solicitor to be present at any meeting that he would only see me personally in relation to the matter and that it didn't matter whether I found his excuses reasonable or even acceptable that the matter would be closed and correspondence from me filed without acknowledgment. I wrote a letter of complaint to the Minster and my letter was not responded to.

This is an administrative cover up.

If this type of mis-conduct isn't a problem for our system then I do not know what is!  Our investigatory bodies are not required to identify fabricated and/or altered documents nor do they want  to properly and fairly investigate complaints and the system lacks impartiality and integrity to the extreme. 

For the record:  Despite it being presented since 2004 in numerous internal DET documents as a fact,  I have never been deemed vexatious or advised that I have been formally deemed vexatious etc by the Minister or  DET.  In 2007, after requesting evidence of the process used to deem me vexatious I received a signed letter from the FOI Unit dated December 2008 that clearly states that I have not ever been deemed vexatious by the Minister or the DET.   This was another fabricated story spread by the persons against whom allegations were made so as to discredit me so that our allegations would be ignored.

Despite having the evidence that clearly shows that I have not been deemed vexatious and substantial evidence that shows that the allegations have never been investigated my family can find no avenue to get our name of the list that we have been placed on that ensures that our correspondence is filed away and our family can find no avenue to hold the DET to account and force the Government to investigate the allegations that have been made against the DET.  This is despite the fact that the allegations are serious and involve children.

It upsets me to no end to read that they presented me as a mother who was harming my children when it was them who were neglecting, targeting, bullying and harming them.   All I did was request documents under FOI and make written complaints to try to get protection and justice for my children.  If making complaints was causing my children to be at risk of harm then this harm would be happening because of them and that  is victimsation and  is against the law. 

Manipulation of complaints DET style.

After years of fighting a cover up with the DET in relation to allegations of bias and manipulation today it hit me.  The whole time this has been going on the Selective Schools Unit (SSU) has wanted me to focus on the tests and the test marks and they have done everything in their power to do that as that way the matter would go no further and they wouldn't have to address the issue of what happened next.  It worked because I was told by the Ombudsmans office that because I couldn't prove the test or school marks were manipulated in the first instance that they wouldn't investigate anything that happened after that. 

The SSU made sure that I couldn't prove manipulation in the first instance by destroying the original answer sheets and withholding or loosing other relevant information. They knew that they could close the matter on the basis of that without addressing any other issues or allegations in relation to the process as they could just say that the allegations could not be substantiated. Their tactics to keep the matter focused on the tests and marks worked because it took the attention away from the fact that:

1.  After the selection commitees met and awarded my daughter a composite score of 232.19 see here  and here Magda Pollack accessed my daughters results and changed the score, under the guise of an error in calculation, to a lower score of 214.26 so that she would not be successful for the school of her choice. That lower incorrectly calculated score was then presented to the Appeals panel for them to make their decision  see here .  We know that Magda Pollak changed the score because we received stuck to the letter advising of the test results a copy of a data file dated 4 September that showed the changing of the scores by Magda Pollak -see here .  The legidimate data file produced under FOI and dated 17 Sept 02 shows the higher score of 232.19 as awarded by the Selection Commitee not the lower score as changed by Magda Pollak see here .

2.  After the selection commitees met and awarded my son a score of 213.33  see here Magda Pollak accessed my sons results and changed the score to 199.92 and removed him from the Offer list and put him on the reserve list.  The data file shows two scores see here.  

 One would imagine that it would be highly unlikely that two different selection commitees on different days for the same year would  both calculate my children's scores incorrectly and they would both need to be changed to lower scores?

3.  Magda Pollack didn't put my youngest daughters application before the Selection Commitee despite saying in submissions that the Selection Commitee determined the application instead she lied about the IQ test and the results of my daughters school reports so that my daughter would not be considered. 

There are mirespresentations and evidence of manipulation, bias and misconduct throughout the whole process for all my children.

This is only a snap shot of what has happened but at the end of the day the reality is that the DET have failed in their duty of care and breached their code of conduct and the complaint handling system and process designed by our Governments is designed to cover up and protect public servants and by extension or Government.    That they can do that and get away with ti is a concern and ensures that our children are not protected.

If the Legal Officer of the DET calls it a Conspiracy - is it a conspiracy?

I have been lucky in that I have bought a new scanner/copier and it is sitting right next to my computer.  Previously I had to go upstairs to my daughter's study and bother her when I wanted to scan things and she had to do the process and then save it and then had to send it to me by email or I had to use her computer to post things so the whole process was difficult.  Now I can just sit here and scan all the interesting emails that I have from the Department of Education and put them straight onto my blog.

During the course of our families matter the Department of Education has tried to present me as paranoid about a conspiracy and of me having accused 'everybody' of being part of the conspiracy.   They have said in submissions that "There is no conspiracy against my family".  I can scan that submission if anybody wants to see it.

However in the email below the Senior Legal Officer of the Legal Services Directorate of the Department of Education specifically refers to a conspiracy.  She not only refers to a conspiracy she states that the correspondence has been delayed so that then the Crown Solicitor is also part of the conspiracy? 

I will set out the email here below in case you dont want to open the link but check it yourself if you do not believe me.  I have scanned page 2 first and then page 1 as the email is split between the two: Email 13 June 2006

From:  Lee Rayer -  TO:  Magda Pollak - Sent 13 June 2006 9:48 a.m.

Morning, I hope your weekend wasn't as bad as you thought it was going to be.  I received a copy of correspondence that Chrisa Ludlow forwarded to Mrs Challita's solicitor which provided the documentation from your Unit and apologised for the delay and saying that it was caused by an oversight in the Crown Solicitors Office.  So now Christa will be part of the conspiracy.

Christa wanted me to thank you very much for your patience and tolerance as a witness in this matter. I want to also thank you for your professionalism in the face of great adversity.  Let me know when you want me to look a the letter you are drafting about Amanda's application. 

Regards
Lee Raynor - Senior Legal Officer - Legal Services Directorate

Of course despite formal requests that Magda Pollak have nothing to do with my daughters matter and after having been advised that she had removed herself from the processing of the application etc, documents produced under FOI show that Magda Pollak was the one who was consulted and who was sent my daughters original test papers by ACER (the company that is supposed to mark the tests).  The DET also marked Amanda's test instead of ACER, but presented it as though ACER marked it, and Magda Pollak was the one who was drafting all correspondence in relation to matters to do with my daughter - even from home on the weekends.  This is despite the fact that formal allegations of bias, bullying, victimisation, neglect and manipulation of state records having been made against her and formal requests were made to keep her away from anything to do with my family or children.

Further documents produced under FOI show that Magda lied about Amanda's IQ test results (the DET have agreed to make a notation/amend the records to that effect but that of course doesn't raise questions at the DET or in their eyes suggest wrongdoing), she lied about Amanda's application being put before the Selection Commitee, she lied about the results of my daughters school academic performance results and Amanda's application was never put before the Selection Commitees despite it being presented in letters and submissions as though the Selection Commitees were the ones who made the determination to not offer my daughter a place.  The fact that Amanda was an accelerated student and young for her year was also not noted as required as this would have immediately flagged her application and meant that her application should have been put before the Selection Commitee for consideration.

My daughter was culled by Magda Pollack and the Selection Commitee was not given the opportunity to consider her application.  Because of the failure of the DET or Government to act on numerous formal complaints against Magda Pollak our children and family have been denied impartial and unbiased decisions  - this was the 3rd of our children that Magda Pollak was allowed to bully, victmise, vilifiy and neglect and the 7th time she had done this to one of my children.  We also know of other children who have similar documents produced under FOI and who were treated the same way.

Instead of the allegations being investigated Magda Pollak was given our families matters and complaints to 'take care of' and she was promoted to the Leader of the Selective Schools Unit where she has control over all documents and everything to do with the process.  Apparently nobody else in the DET knows how to identify a gifted child or knows how to do the process, or knows how to provide documents in relation to matters to do with the Selective High School process.

EDUCATION DESPAIR & DISGRACE

It is with sadness that I read about the decision against Rajaratnam Premachandran in relation to allegations of defamation against a Primary School Principal. 

It is of no suprise that the newspapers present the story incorrectly, http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/angry-dads-80k-defamation-bill/story-e6freuy9-1225794962835, this story was never about the students missing out on a Selective School place.  The email complaining about the Principal and the education of the school was sent in April and the Selective School results didn't come until until July.

This story is about a family trying to do the best for their bright children and being in despair at the failures of the public education system.   The failure of the comprehensive school system to educate mainstream public school students to a level of competition against  students who are in Private schools or who are tutored/coached or who are in Opportunity Class is extreme.  

The expressions used by Prem just represents his background and his somwhat limited grasp of the English culture/language - he certainly would do well to work on that but there was never any malice.   This was an honest opinion based on experiences and the desire to provide for his daughters. To not be allowed to speak out about it to interested parties without having to pay compensation is a disgrace.

This is an attack on our freedom of speech and in particular members of the Department of Education.  Our Government continues to cover their own back.

EXPOSING AN UNFAIR SYSTEM

The last few decisions handed down in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (see below) show just what sort of system we have .  When the Government provides a Tribunal to hear matters of concerns with FOI but gives the Tribunal no direction, jurisdication or power to deal with matters of integrity that means we have a morally and legally flawed system and really - a farce.

The FOI Act states the following: 

The objects of this Act are to extend, as far as possible, the rights of the public:

(a) to obtain access to information held by the Government, and

(b) to ensure that records held by the Government concerning the personal affairs of members of the public are not incomplete, incorrect, out of date or misleading.

(2) The means by which it is intended that these objects are to be achieved are:

(a) by ensuring that information concerning the operations of the Government (including, in particular, information concerning the rules and practices followed by the Government in its dealings with members of the public) is made available to the public, and

(b) by conferring on each member of the public a legally enforceable right to be given access to documents held by the Government, subject only to such restrictions as are reasonably necessary for the proper administration of the Government, and

(c) by enabling each member of the public to apply for the amendment of such of the Government’s records concerning his or her personal affairs as are incomplete, incorrect, out of date or misleading.

It gets to the stage that I don't know what to say.  What I continue to expose concerns me.  We have  processes and systems set up by our Government that present like we have rights, openness, accountability and protection but in reality only those who break the law and who abuse have rights and are protected as the Courts and Tribunals have no power to challenge those who do the wrong thing.

One would think that students seeking copies of their own test papers and results should be able to access them without having to request them under FOI and fight for years on end to see their legidimate results. 

One would think that people with concerns regarding processess and procedures should be able to have their concerns properly and fairly addressed and the Department in question should be obligated to provide them with the documentation to support what they say that they have done and have said has occurred.

You would think that if formal serious allegations are made against an employee of bias, manipulation and tampering of state records that this person would be supervised or watched and not let loose with access to critical documents and papers pertaining to the matter year after year..

Recently in relation to one of our FOI applications we asked that Magda Pollak not be permitted to have anything to do with matters to do with my family and FOI as there are formal allegations of bias and misconduct against her that have never been addressed.  We were told that only Magda Pollack has the ability to access and prepare documents in relation to matters of the Selective Schools Unit. 

It is a concern that only one person in the DET has the ability to deal with these matters because that allows for corruption and is not best practice.  This one person has also been presented as the only person in the DET, and that includes the Selective Schools Unit and the Gifted and Talented Unit,  who has the ability to identify a gifted child.   Does that not sound to you like far to much power for one human being especially one with allegations of bias, bullying, victimisation, manipulation, neglect and misconduct made against them?

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adtjudgments/2009nswadt.nsf/00000000000000000000000000000000/8762f72a3229ed36ca2575bd0002639e?opendocument

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adtjudgments/2009nswadt.nsf/00000000000000000000000000000000/8389479fef9aa55fca2575eb00274073?opendocument

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adtjudgments/2009nswadt.nsf/00000000000000000000000000000000/dc08ca6315bac58fca257639000d7b02?opendocument

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adtjudgments/2008nswadt.nsf/00000000000000000000000000000000/7a311fa0db43128bca2574ad001673d7?opendocument

'TEACHERS WITH INTEGRITY" stand up to the det........

I came across a very interesting website whilst having my daily read through the Bad Apple Bullies website http://www.badapplebullies.com/teacherstories.htm.   The Bad Apple Bullies website is a website for teachers who have been bullied and/or victimised by Departmental and or Government staff.

The  website in question is called  "Teachers with Integrity"  http://teacherswithintegrity.com/

Just like this website, these websites challenge the integrity of the Education System and complaint handling processes and procedures.  Just like our families situation these teachers have had to resort to publicly airing thier concerns/allegations as they have been denied procedural fairness and natural justice.

It seems that it doesn't matter whether you are a teacher or a parent if you bring up concerns in relation to the DET you will be dealt with and the system will ensure you pay a price.

I would like to publicly support these teachers in their quest for justice.  They deserve to be treated fairly and with respect.

PRINCIPAL SUES PARENT FOR DEFAMATION:

A matter is before the Courts where a Public School Principal is suing a fellow parent for defamation.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/principals-reputation-ruined-by-email-vendetta-court-hears/story-e6freuzi-1225752408270#skip-links

The Parent, after being unable to get any satisfaction on important educational issues that he raised with the Principal, sent an email to some fellow class parentsl  In the email he outlined his concerns about the ability and integrity of the Principal and put it out there that the principal should be removed from her position as she was failing in her duty of care to the children.  He sent a copy to the Principal herself.  He was very upset and felt very strongly about what he wrote.

In return the Principal is suing him for defamation.  The matter is before the Supreme Court this week.

You have to wonder how it has been that this matter has been permitted to get this far?  

If the Courts award damages to the Principal it is will set a very dangerous precedent where parents will be unable to voice their concerns without risking being sued for defamation - even if their concerns are valid and true.

This could seriously impact our freedom of speech!

Scary times ahead.

 

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 their was bias and that the selection process was maniuplated at every step of the process. We cannot prove that the original scores were manipulated as the Selective Schools Unit (SSU) destroyed the original test answer sheets despite being requested to produce them under FOI so as to ensure that we could not verify the marks, but there are other steps in the Selective School process that present with significant and serious issues.  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 the now Leader of the Selective Schools Unit accessed our children's application and changed their scores and took away their place and she did this 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 as component scores should be out of 100 and outcomes that do not match the outcomes shown on documents produced under FOI  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 specifically requested to be set aside and produced under FOI.

The entry noted on copies of the official data files printed and 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 two copies of Katie's Data files produced under FOI in November 2002 and November 2005.

HOWEVER -  IN a copy of a DATA FILE print dated 4/9/02 THAT  WE RECEIVED STUCK BY A PAPER CLIP TO THE CHILDREN'S MARKS RESULTS LETTER sent on 10 September 209 in an ENTRY DATED 12/9/82 (after the Selection Committee met)  IT STATES THE FOLLOWING:

12/8/02 MP:  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 that appeared on this data file was the score that was presented to the Appeals panel by Magda Pollak as the calculation of Katie's score together with misrepresentations and biased personal opinions.  On the basis on this incorrect score and the recommendation by Magda Pollak that there be no change to the outcome 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, the person whom we are alleging is victimising our children,  changed both Danny and Katies test scores to lower scores after the Selection Committee members had met and made their decisions 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 component 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, on the entry on the official data file printed and 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  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 sheet. By doing this  we could not verify the marks and their excuse was that becasue we couldn't prove that the marks had been tampered with in the first instance that they would not look at any of our allegations.  They destroyed the answer sheets despite the original documents being specifically requested to be set aside and produced under FOI.    However 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 that FOI documents clearly show was drafted by the person whom we alleged was responsible. I was not advised that the matter was closed and I was never advised that I had been deemed vexatious by the Minister despite this being continously presented in documents.  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 so called true and accurate test results showed inconsistancies and errors.

This is a copy of a file 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.  However 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 and complaints.

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.