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.

Comments

[Cassie O]

Why didn't you just apply for your children to go to these high schools in later years, such as year 9 or 10? In most cases, I don't think the DET has a say in this, the principal gets the final say.

CASSIE - We tried once. Problem was that because the SSU had put my families name on a 'special list' anything that my family did in relation to Selective Schools Issues, including applying for other years for Selective School placement, was collected and sent to the Leader of the Selective Schools Unit to deal with first. We have documents under FOI that clearly show that our Year 8 Applications for 4 schools were not dealt with by the School or the Principal as are other students. The appeals panel was also headed and run by persons with allegations of bias and discrimination made against them and they were a voting member. The system is really corrupted and unfair.

We shouldn't have needed to go through all this just to get access to more appropriate education for our children.

[X]

What I am wondering after looking at these (and not being a Maths person) is whether it's possible that the scores are calculated in some sort of strange percentage way (like the UAI) which means that you can't correlate with actual raw marks.

X...............Even though there is clear evidence of errors, inconsistances and issues I cannot prove manipulation of the original test marks as the Leader of the Selective Schools Unit destroyed the original answer sheets so the results cannot be verified.

However, at the end of the day the score that matters is the score awarded to the student by the Selection Commitee as that is the process. In my children 's case the scores awarded by the Selection Commitees were later changed to lower scores by the Leader of the Selective Schools Unit. This person also presented incorrect, misleading and incomplete information to the Appeals panels>......................

Were your kids satisfied with their HSC marks in the end? I thought that your daughters did go to a selective school, just not the one you wanted?

x................ It isn't about whether my kids were satisfied with their HSC mark. They didn't go to school to get a 'HSC' mark. They went to school to learn and to grow. It should have been a place where they were encouraged and protected from harm>...............

In the end it's also whether you get to go into the career that you want.

x...............The DET were never going to succeed in destroying my children or their careers as my children are strong and proud and they come from a very solid and good home and there are many roads that one can take. If you think that making what should of been some of the best years of their young life miserable is not important then what can I say?>.......................

[Rodney Finkelstein]

The results of your children are actually quite crappy. It doesn't matter whether they were tampered with or not, they weren't going to make it into a school you wanted them to either way.

Rodney.......... So you are telling me that it doesn't matter if they were tampered with or not that the results are crappy? How can it not matter? If the results are tampered with they are not a true indication?

[Rodney Finkelstein]

Assuming the raw marks have not been tampered with and just the final score, then yeah, they're horrible.

Rodney. If the raw marks had not been tampered with then the SSU would not have destroyed the original answer sheets whilst part of an FOI application being put before the Tribunal - they would have just presented the original answer sheets to prove that they did nothing wrong.

So tell me what raw marks did you get? Do you know what raw marks produce what scores? Or are you just guessing?

In any event even if a student who always showed themselves to be high achieving and who was formally identified as highly intellectually gifted and who had spent years being educationally neglected in the comprehensive system, and who had been fighting the DET for appropriate education, choked on the day due to stress, surely if the student produced clear evidence of intellectual giftedness and showed clear evidence of high achievement and showed clear evidence of a recognised need for a more appropriate learning environment, surely, when the student appealed and clearly produced documentary evidence to support their claim, they should given a place especially when the SSU give places to Private School students who are already in optimal learning environments - it is neglect?

So is there absolutely no circumsances that you think that a identified gifted public school student should be eligible for a place in a Selective School if the comprehensive school cannot meet thier needs?

Oh and Rodney, If my children heard of this happening to someone they would be outraged that a system can do this to a child/student. They would feel for the student, be angry at the system and they would have compassion and empathy and want to help. That so many students feel nothing but contempt for these fellow students, students that they do not even know, is really scary and it makes you wonder what sort of education our children are receiving today when nobody cares about what is right and bullies and those who fail in thier duty of care are the ones who are protected.

[Rodney Finkelstein]

Well, school scores were 100 and 100, and E/M/G scores of 39/40/51

Keep in mind, just because I scored full marks in both school and the test for mathematics, it does not mean I got a 100 score for maths. There's such a thing called scaling. Generally, scaling DOWNgrades your final score. As a result, I ended up with 92. Maybe that's what happened?

Rodney - Why dont you post a copy of your marks letter so that everybody can see what you mean? What is the bet that your componet score wasn't 92 out of 40?????

Oh and why do you continue to ignore what is going on and just focusing on the original marks. I have told you many times that the DET destroyed the answer sheets so that they couldn't be verified. We also asked for certified true and accurate copies of our children's test results and they showed inconsistancies and errors including too many answers to the amount of multiple choice questions.

Why do you NOT want to believe that the system is corrupted? Why would you prefer to believe that I am just some sort of crazy mother and a liar. This way of thiking comes across as young people having no respect for mothers, adults or each other?

[Rodney Finkelstein]

Because its just one case. Why would they tamper with YOUR children's scores and not others? What makes you better/more important than all the other people?

Rodney: Please listen to what you are saying! How can being the targets of bullying and victimisation be seen as meaning you are better/more important than all the other people? What has happened is victimisation/discrimination.

My families case is not the only one. The Selective Schools Unit has an attitude against intellectually gifted students. I know of other families who have been dealt with the same way and the Department knows of these others as they have lodged formal complaints, and the Ministers know and the Ombudsman knows, ICAC knows - and what do they do? NOTHING>>>>> Do you think that is the right way for things to be run?

[Rodney Finkelstein]

Seems to work. Not really my problem to start with. Have fun with your case.

Rodney. It doesn't work. The system is grossly unfair and it is corrupted. It is a shame that people have to wait until it impacts them. Today we have people in the DET who are prejuiced against gifted children and parents who speak out. Tomorrow it might be one who dislikes high achieving Asians and when the process is set up to cover up bias, manipulation and misconduct anything can happen.

[Nina]

All these years, all this fuss, just because the department are crap at working out one third of one mark, two thirds are another, and adding the figures together?

Jolnada: So Nina you are happy with a Selective System being unable to add up marks that result in a student being offered or missing out on a place in a Selective School. Would you feel that way if it was your child? Or do you only feel that way because they were my children?

Come of it, you can't possibly be serious!

Jolanda: Dead serious Nina and until all the records are amended to reflect the truth I will not stop and then I am going to write a book to expose them. They cannot treat people like this and expect to get away with it.

The lower scores weren't "manipulated", they were the right scores, with the first scores having been calculated incorrectly - obviously they're bad at maths.

Jolanda: You cannot be serious with what you say and what you are prepared to accept. In any event I have evidence that the lower scores are calculated incorrectly.

As for the very first comment, very good point. As always you have an excuse "but, but, but, but", it's like a whiny child who always has someone else to blame for the budgie getting out of the bird cage.

What a pathetic spectacle.

Jolanda. You are the one who is coming across as pathetic Nina because you should be supporting the children and our right to be treated fairly and to be afforded procedural fairness and natural justice. That you do not says more about you than about me. I am just exercising my rights.

With two of the children now at university, time to give it a rest.

Jolanda. No rest until all the records reflect the truth that is our right under FOI. Nobody can give back to my children what was taken from them and nobody can turn back time but the DET have created an internal lie about my children and family and I will not rest until that situation is rectified as we have been vilified and defamed and we do not deserve it.