EDUCATION - KEEPING THEM HONEST

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.

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.

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.

NEW - OVERVIEW OF PROCESS AND INVESTIGATIONS

I am in the process of putting together an overview of process and investigations in relation to my children's Opportunity Class placement and Selective High School Applications and the handling of the complaints.

These overviews will be in the Pages section on the right.

I have started the Overview of the process but am not quite finished.

I have started the Overview of complaints but again I am not quite finished.

Unfortunately I have to wait until the begining of next month to upload the documents.   

This will give people an much better idea of the issues in a more easier to understand form and with documents to support our claims.

WHEN EXCUSES DO NOT ADD UP

This post is a work in progress.  I will attach the relevant information later as I need access to a scanner.

I have decided to start posting letters and evidence to show the excuses that the Department of Education gave that were accepted on face value despite the documents/evidence clearly showing that it wasn't the truth.  My responses are in bold and italic.

In a letter to Mr. Barry O'Farrell, who was the then the Opposition Education Minister in 2003 it states the following:

Mrs and Mr Challita's applications for Year 7 entry to a selective high school for their children, Danny and Katie, were considered by a selection committee and an appeals panel.  Mrs and Mr Challita were given, under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, all documents relating to these applications. 

This parargaph doesn't present the whole truth.  Our allegations are in relation to our eldest sons Year 5 OC application for 2001.  Our eldest daughters Year 5 OC application for 2002 and our son and daughters year 7 Applications for 2003.   

The Minister isn't being told the truth.  The Department did not produce all the documents requested under the FOI Act and we had to take the matter to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) for determination.  ON the day the matter was for planning meeting at the ADT the ORIGINAL answer sheets (that we had specifically requested be set aside and be produced) were destroyed!  The Department later stating that since they had electronic records of the answers on their computer system they saw no reason to keep the original answer sheets - see attached!   

On the morning of the hearing at the ADT on 18 August 2003 the Department and I made some agreements (see attached letter from Crown Solicitor) and the hearing didn't go ahead.  To date the Department has still not honoured their agreements.

Their allegations concerning the selection process have been thoroughly investigated by the former Minister, the Hon. John Watkins MP and by the Ombudsman's office an each issue raise has been explained to Mrs and Mr Challita on a number of occasions.

The Minister for Education Mr. John Watkins did not investigate the allegations.  He just responded to a couple of letters from me and then Ministers changed and Mr. Refshauge became Minister.  I then wrote to Mr. Refshauge and he wrote back to me saying that the matter would be investigated under the "Responding to Allegations and Complaints policy (see attached) and that I would be contacted in relation to same.  I was not contacted and this investigation has never taken place.

The Ombudsman refused to investigate the matter.  He provided some excuses that did not address the issues and when I asked for a review of the decision, sending documentary evidence that showed that the Department was not telling the truth, he said that since he believed that we were not going to accept any view that did not accord with our own that he saw no reason to provide us with explanations and that the matter was closed.  Problem was that it wasn't 'our view' it was what was clearly shown on the documents. 

He also said that since we didn't have the evidence that proved manipulation in the first instance (as original answer sheets had been destroyed) that he was not investigating anything that happened after that.  The fact that they destroyed evidence that was specifially requested to be set aside seemed to mean nothing to the Ombudsman.  When I complained to the Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission about the handling of the matter by the Ombudsman they said that they were prohibited from investigating this type of conduct.

Academic merit for entry into selective high school is determined mainly by the combination of the results of the Selective Schools Test in English language, mathematics and general ability, together with the primary school assessments of student performance in English and mathematics.  Additional information provided by the parents is considered at the discretion of the Selection Committees.

The additional information provided by Mrs and Mr Challita in the form of an IQ test was accepted by the selection committee and necessitated a manual recalculation of Katie's Profile score.  It has been explained to Mrs and Mr Challita that normal quality control procedures, undertaken before the outcome letters were posted, revealed that the manual recalculation had been inaccurate.  The score, when recalculated correctly, was found to be 214.26.  The correctly calculated score was ratified and adopted by the relevant selection committee.

The Data file received by us under FOI in November 2002 and dated 17 September 2002,  shows the Profile score adopted by the Selection Commitee as 232.19 (see attached).   The data file produced to us under FOI in December 2005 and dated 16 November 2005 also shows the score of 232.19 (see attached).   The incorrect score of 214.26 together with biased personal opinions and a misrepresentation of facts was presented to the appeals panel in an appeal analysis prepared by the person that we allege is responsible and datd 5 October 2002....(see attached)

The person who we allege is responsible, accessed my daughters data file after the selection committees met and made their decisions, and re-calculated the score from 232.19 to 214.26 under the guise of an error in calculation and presented it to the appeals panel.  This lowering of the score was then deleted from the data file and did not show up in the data file produced in November 2002 or December 2005.  Both these data sheets present the score as 232.19. 

This process was clearly outlined on the memo entry which accompanied the electronic records relating to Katie Challita's applications.  Owing to the memo field size limitations the Selective Schools Unit was later forced to delete some of the information in order to make further entries.   For Katie, the information which was deleted related to the original error in the calculation.  The memo  made on 8 August for Katie was inadvertently not deleted and showed the results of the incorrect calculation, 232.19, instead of 214.26.

This paragraph is essentially saying that the computer system was not able to keep all the information so they had to remove information in relation to outcomes and calculating of scores!!  At the hearing of the matter the SSU indicated that there were no minutes or notes taken of hte meetings and that the data file was the only record they have of what happens? 

In this particular instance the letter says that they had to remove the right score to make room for the wrong score?

The information that was deleted was the changing of the scores to a lower score by the person that we allege is responsible under the guise of an error in calculation.  I know this because when we received our children's test marks, in a letter dated 10 September 2002, (that also shows scores that do not add up - see attached), attached by a paper clip to the back of one of the letters was a copy of my daughter's data file dated 4 September 2002. This data file showes the changing of the scores to a much lower score (see attached).  The score of 214.26 was later verified and accepted as correct by an entry on the data file by a  person that we allege is involved in the matter and who was personally named in the complaint to the Ombudsman, after the Department had been contacted by the Ombudsman, that said - see attached?

14/2/2003 16:51 BW

Note:  Memo of 8/8/03 is incorrect.  Score should have been 214.26.  The error was noted in the process of responding to an RML which followed after and FOI request.

A table showing how the score was produced is attached to the RML.

This table was not produced under FOI.  This table was however ordered to be provided by the ADT in April 2005.  The table clearly shows that the score of 214.26 was not the correct score and was calculated incorrectly. 

In my sons data file (see attached) it also shows the adding of an extra (lower) score at the end of the calculation.  This lower score was the score that was used to determine placement and was presented to the appeals panel.   Documents produced under FOI at the hearing shows that the score that was added and used to determine placement was not correct - (see attached).  The process was biased, manipulated and flawed.

Mrs and Mr Challita were invited on several occasions to contact the Leader of the Selective Schools Unit for any further explanations they may require.  To date they have not done so.

This is not true. I contacted the Leader at the time and advised him that given the seriousness of the allegations and the way my children and family were being treated and handled that we required a solicitor to be present at the meeting.  He said he would get back to me and he didn't. He was later to tell me that he would provide only me with the excuses/explanations and regardless of whether I found his excuses reasonable or even acceptable that the matter would be closed and further correspondence from me filed without acknowledgment.

This meeting has never taken place. The matter has never been investigated and my children have as a result continued to be targeted and treated unfairly.

Following from the above in 2002/03 and following the failure of the Department to properly and fairly deal with the complaints and protect my children from the actions of those we allege are responsible my eldest son was denied an impartial and unbiased decision  in relation to his Year 8 applications in 2003 for placemeng in 2004.  He was unsuccessful even on appeal. 

My son was also part of a witch hunt to destroy his reputation that same year that was later shown not to have been able to be true as he wasn't even at school.

My eldest daughter had issues in relation to biased in marking of external tests.  The Department refused to investigate the allegations.  Documents clearly show incorrect marking.

My youngest daughter was denied an impartial and unbiased decision in relation to an Opportunity Class application in the year 2004 to 2005. She was unsuccessful even on appeal.

My youngest daughter was denied an impartial and unbiased decision in relation to Selective High School placement for 2007.  She was unsuccessful even on appeal.

During this time my children were being treated unfairly, marked down, put down and humiliated by certain members of the Department of Education at school.

My youngest son has this year applied for Opportunity Class placement for next year 2008.  Since these allegations have not been acknowledged or addressed they are deemed to be not sustained and those that we allege are resonsbile are seen as innocent until proven guilty so they are permitted to continue to deal with my children's application!

There has never been an investigation, not by the Department and not by the Ombudsman, the matter has been closed internally by those we allege are resonsbile and there is in place a conspiracy to cover up.   As a result my children have continued to be targeted, victimized, bullied and neglected year after year whilst everybody looks on.

It is time that this ends.

In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald recently and set out in my 'Selective School post below the Leader of the Selective Schools Unit clearly says:

"There are 26,061 students, including the non-selective streams, enrolled in selective and partially selective schools. She says extremely bright students benefit greatly from learning together. "One of the myths is that the bright kids will make it in any environment, when the research shows these are the very kids who will drop out and get clinically depressed and have all sorts of difficulties if they aren't in a group with their intellectual and emotional peers. They will mask their abilities and come down to the level of the others.

The three children have IQ test results ranging from 147 - 161. These scores identify the students as gifted but they do not form the basis for opportunity class and selective high school entry."

I had been communicating in writing with the Department of Education since the Year 2000 in relation to the impact that the neglect of my children's education has had on them as identified highly/exceptionally gifted children and in relation to the harm that the unfair and unjust treatment they were being exposed to by the Department was having on them.   It seems that nobody is required to care.

MEETING WITH DIRECTOR GENERAL

Today my husband and I had a meeting with the Director General Michael Coutts-Trotter in his office at Bridge Street, Sydney.   He had said that he would see us at 1.00 p.m, and that he had only half an hour to spare.  The appointment would finish at 1.30 pm.   

When we went in we did a bit of small talk and then he started telling us about how staff from the Department were being impacted by my families complaints.   It was as though he was blaming us because the persons about whom we are making the allegations and complaints about were worried and nervous.  The Director General told us that one of them was hanging on by a thread.   I couldn't help but wonder what was going through his head.

Of course at that point I advised him that if these public servants had done the right thing and if they had nothing to worry about then they wouldn't need to be scared?   A simple open and fair investigation would clear the air.   I explained to him about how the Department had breached Departmental Policy by not investigating the original complaints and by not investigating further fresh complaints and how they had breached their Code of Conduct by their actions and inaction.   

Michael Coutts-Trotter talked about how he had read the reports and from what he had read that there had been a review.  This of course is not true, there has not been an actual review.   These reports have been written by those that we allege are responsible and these reports are being challenged under FOI as they do not represent the truth and we have made a formal application under FOI to amend these documents to reflect the truth. But still he chooses to believe the lies.   I asked him to show me where they have reviewed the matter?  I offer to present to him the emails and letters that clearly showed that no review has ever taken place and that no investigation has ever taken place despite my family being promised one by the then Minister for Education and despite it being required by Policy. 

I had an opportunity to give the Director General some information that he wouldn't have heard before but at the end of the day I felt he was defensive because our allegations involved alot of people, he refused to admit or acknowledge anything and even went so far as to suggest that my family should just cop it sweet and stop complaining.

When I told him that my eldest two, who are in Year 11, were very worried about their HSC marks next year he became aggressive and questioned the sanity of believing that the Department would manipulate with their HSC scores.  He had a huge folder in front of him that represents over 7 years of bias and manipulation aimed at my children and he comes out with this stance?   He made me so mad.  Not for one minute did he stop to consider the children!

I knew at that point that there was nothing more to be said.   It seemed that he was getting his information from a folder that was next to him and I couldn't help but wonder who prepared that information because if he wasn't seeing what my family was alledging then he was not being provided with all the documentation.  The process is quite amazing because our Director General was no-doubt acting on what information he had been given by those we allege are responsbile or involved in the conspiracy , information that you cannot check, and his actions and reactions clearly indicates that there is information missing in that folder and that there has been presented a misrepresentation of facts and totally unreasonable excuses given for things that have occurred..  However there is no way for you to argue it because they dont have to show you what they are using to come to their decisions, they just pretend it is what you sent but I know that it isn't what as I sent it because I didn't send him anywhere near that much paper.   This file had tabs in it to bring his attention to certain documents. It appears that bureaucrats can believe what they want, read what they want to read, and close the matter on the basis of that.  The whole system is grossly unfair to the ordinary person.   It affords ordinary people absolutely no rights or protection.

The Director General said he would make some more enquiries and ask some questions but I don't trust the system as no matter what he asks, whatever excuse that he is given, even if it is unreasonable will be accepted as a response and the matter deemed closed.  Of course I could be wrong but aftermore than  7 years of this - I know how it works as I have clearly seen the pattern.

I told him that I would continue on my way and proceed to take the Department of Education to Court.. This is such a waste of resources and funding.  As a parent and as students my children and family should be entitled to procedural fairness and natural justice and the children should be entitled to protection without having to spend so much of our time and money and the taxpayers money taking the Department to Court to answer the serious allegations that are being made.  It seems that we are the ones being treated like criminals.    That we are not entitled to procedural fairness and natural justice puts us in par with some interesting countries.   

A bit before 1.30 somebody came to the door, that had been left open, and indicated to the Director General that our time was up.   

This shows how much we are valued by the Public school system!

Good night.

BULLYING - DEPARTMENTAL STYLE

There has been so much in the newspapers this week about the failure of the Department of Education to act on allegations of bullying and how it has resulted in them having to pay quite a large sum in compensation http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21726406-5001021,00.html  I truly hope that this is enough to make those in authority in the system stand up and take note.

One of the worst things about being bullied is not the act of bullying itself, it is the failure of the adults or those around you to act to try to stop it and protect you.  It sends the message that you are not valued enough and not worthy enough to be treated fairly.  It also causes great fear because it makes you feel insignificant, vulnerable, targeted and exposed.

The Department of Education have a very interesting idea of what constitues bullying.   In documents produced under FOI there is an internal email.    This email was triggered when the Department of Education read on my blog that I was going to write to the Premier Mr. Morris Iemma asking him to intervene in this matter and to force the Department of Education to investigate these serious complaints and allegations.   

The email was headed:  RE:  Further to Mrs Challita's intentions.   

"Dave,

Tish is ringing Jacinta in the Minister's office to give her early advice and to say a briefing is on its way.

I am aware that Mrs. Challit'as constant and escalating demands are extraordinarily wearing.  Even though we know we have been very fair and that her demands are unreasonable and obsessive, they constitute a form of bullying.

If any of the EMSAD staff are feeling very stressed by all of this please remind them of the confidential counselling services available under Employee Assistance Program (EAP) details of which are on the DET website.

Gillian.

Of course the Minister got their submissions filled with lies  first, so my correspondence was filed without acknowledgement.  The really interesting thing about all this is that I am just asking the Department of Education to afford my family procedural fairness and natural justice and to protect my children from bullies within their ranks and for that I am deemed  THE BULLY.

See how the system has it all wrong.    It's interesting how the system never offered my children counselling despite the fact that I advised them on numerous occasions how this was impacting on their mental and physical health.

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF - AGAIN

Well I received a response from the Ombudsman, which incidentally appears to be the role of the Ombudsman, to just respond.   It appears that actually affording a complainant procedural fairness is not something that falls into their radar.  It appears that they have so much discretion that they can do whatever they like.  Regardless if the victims are children.  The response is as follows and my comments are in bold:

Your letter of 6 April 2007 you have expressed dissatisfaction with Mr. Michael Conaty's decision not to formally investigate your complaint about the department's handling of your complaints about your children's selective school applications, test results and related issues.

Your letter has been treated as a request for a review of Mr. Conaty's decision.  My officers have a wide discretion in deciding which of the many matters submitted for my attention are acted upon.  I recognise that errors can sometimes occur.  In the interest of fairness, in such situations I have another officer conduct a fresh assessment of the matter and advise me whether the original decision should be confirmed or altered.  In this case, Ms Sanya Silver, Senior Investigation Officer, conducted the review.

After receiving Ms Silvers advice and reviewing the file myself, I have decided to confirm the original decision for the same reasons set out in Mr. Conaty's letter to you dated 16 March 2007 even after considering the further comments you have made.

This is a very interesting paragraph as this is exactly what happened last time, Mr Barbour said that another officer conducted the review but then he decided to review the matter himself and confirm the original advice. I would like to know the decision of Ms Sanya Silver, especially since the last time Mr Barbour dealt with my families complaints he refused to provide my family with the reasons for the decision in relation to his review instead just saying that since he believed that we were not going to accept any view that did not accord with our own (of course the fact that the evidence supported our view was irrelevant) that he saw no reason to provide us with his reasons and that the matter was closed. I made a formal complaint to the Office Of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission about the unfair manner that he dealt with the matter.  They of course said that they don't have the Jurisdiction to do anything and Legislation prohibits them from investigating the type of conduct that we were alleging.  Now he has done it again.

In making this decision I make the following additional observations.

You request an independent person to be present at a potential access to information meeting agreed to by the Department following and Administrative Decisions Tribunal direction about our Freedom of Information (FOI) applications. I note that the Department's advice in Mr John Murn's letter of 2 July 2004 that a meeting can be arranged at any time and that you can bring any support person, other than your children, to such a meeting.  I understand that this offer by the department is still open.  I can only suggest you contact Mr. Murn to make arrangements for the meeting.  I confirm my office will not be involved in this process.

I note your concern that Mr Conaty did not address the issue of the documents produced under FOI showing that you were considered to be a vexatious complainant but were not advised of this by the Department.  While I do not consider it always necessary to address each and every issue raised by a complainant,, I have examined this point and provide the following by way of explanation for my decision not to take any action on this aspect of the complaint.

It appears that the Ombudsman's office has chosen to ignore the vast majority of issues.

The comment you appear to be referring to is contained within the background section of a document entitled "Request by Mrs Challita for exemption from the selective high school test for Amanda Challita - EMD/06/000012" and also in a memo from Ms Magda Pollak to Ms Upaporn Bludnen of 4 March 2004.  The comments state that you have been declared a vexatious correspondent for the purposes of Ministerial correspondence.  I believe that comments were based on the advice contained in a letter from the then Minister for Education and Training dated 19 December 2003 to Mr. John Brogden, a copy of which you have.  The Minister advised that all future correspondence on your then current issues would be filed without response unless it related to matters not previously raised.  This being the case I cannot agree with you that you were not advised of the departments position in this regard or that this amounted to victimisation of your family by the Department.  I further note the department has continued to review new issues raised by you and responded to those.

I never received a letter from the Department of Education saying that I had been deemed vexatious.  The letter that I received said that the matter was to be investigated and that I would be contacted in relation to same.  The letter that the Ombudsman refers to is a letter from the Minister to Mr. Brogden.  It was an internal letter between the Minister and Brogden and it referred to the Minister being advised (by those that we allege are responsible) that the matter already being investigated by the Department and the Ombudsman, a lie, and saying that the matter was as a result closed and that correspondence would be filed away without response.  The Ombudsman Mr. Barbour is responding with information that doesn't represent the truth.

My office supports the action of agencies not to respond to correspondence from members of the public where the issues have been comprehensively reviewed and such correspondence puts an unreasonable burden on the agency's resources without a productive result for either the individual or the agency.

I would say that his office developed this action and process so as to cover up for the Government.

Based on my review of this matter I consider both the department and my office have thoroughly considered your concerns and expanded ample resources in responding to the issues your raised.

The allegations that my family are making are serious allegations.   Policy and Procedure require that these types of allegations be subject to a proper and fair investigation, not just consideration and review, so as to protect the children as they involve children.   To just review the matter and make responses that do not represent the truth breaches policy and ensures that children are not protected.

As a matter of courtesy, I should advise that the practice of my office, once a file has been closed, is to consider and retain further correspondence, but not to reply to it unless we consider it raises a fresh issue that warrants our further action. 

Again I have no doubt that this process has been carefully thought out.

My decision in this matter is final.

It is obvious that not only is the decision final, you cannot ask for documents in relation to the decision under FOI, you cannot ask for the decision to be reviewed.  You cannot challenge the integrity of the Ombudsman.  The Ombudsman can play God.  He doesn't have to answer to anyone.  These are serious allegations of bias, victimisation and misconduct against children and the Ombudsman role seems to be to cover up.

Well it looks like the matter will have to go to the Supreme Court. It is amazing how a system protects the criminals and forces the law abiding citizens to have to go through hell to get justice and protection.

If anybody can help me with drafting Statements of Claims it would be appreciated.

LETTER TO OMBUDSMANS OFFICE

I have received a response to my letter to the Ombudsman so I am going to post the letter that I sent below and then his response to me will be posted above.

Once again Bruce Barbour has been involved in my families matter. The first time he was involved I wrote a formal complaint regarding the manner that he handled the complaint as he refused to afford my family a review of his decision despite the fact that the evidence that we provided clearly showed that the Department was lying and not telling the truth.  Once again History has repeated itself.  Scary especially when you consider that the allegations are against ADULTS and psychological abuse of children.  If the Ombudsman doesn't protect the children then one would have to ask what for are they there?  The letter I sent is set out below:

I refer to your letter dated 16 March 2007 and am concerned about the amount of lies that the Department of Education/Selective Schools Unit has presented to you that you appear to have accepted on face value, despite the evidence/documents not supporting this view, especially given that this information has influenced your decision not to investigate these serious ongoing formal allegations that involve educational neglect and systematic psychological abuse and harm of children.

I will deal with the allegations that I presented in sections in the manner set out by you in your letter in response to my request for a formal investigation:

I will deal with the allegations that I presented in sections in the manner set out by you in your letter in response to my request for a formal investigation.

1.  The Minister for Education promised an investigation would take place, which did not occur.

You state in your letter that my letter to the then Minister for Education, Mr. Refshauge of 24 June 2003 crossed with another letter from the Minister to me dated 17 June 2003 asking me to contact Mr. Wingrave.  This is not true!    In my letter dated 24 June 2003 I am responding to the Ministers letter dated 17 June 2003 and that is clearly noted in the letter – see attached and marked “A”.  The Minister Mr. Refshauge then responded to my letter of 24 June 2003 on 4 August 2003 advising that a formal investigation would be commenced and that Mr Chris Carroll would contact me – see Annexure “B”.

Mr. Carroll DID NOT contact me as promised by the Minister for Education nor did any investigation take place.  When I tried to enquire about the matter I was unable to get an answer or response as to what was going on. 

This raises serious questions in relation to the undated letter that you indicate resulted as a result of a submission lodged by Magda Pollak (one of the main persons that we allege is responsible) on 2 July with reference (RML 03/5996) (the same RML reference as the letter to me advising that an investigation had been commenced), see attached and marked “H”.  This undated letter was never previously seen or received by me directly or under any of our FOI applications nor has the submission dated 2 July 2003 ever been provided or produced despite these documents being requested under FOI!

You acknowledge that in ‘the undated letter’ it presents that my families concerns were investigated by the Ombudsman’s office when you know that this is not true and that the Ombudsman has never investigated the matter.  The whole letter is based on misrepresentation and lies yet you allow it to be used and carry so much weight. The Department has repeatedly presented the matter as being investigated by the Ombudsman and by the Department of Education when clearly this is not true and this action and advice has worked to discredit and defame my family and to deny us protection and fair impartial and unbiased decisions and treatment.

At no time was the Department waiting for me to contact Mr. Wingrave in relation to the formal complaint initiated by Mr. Refshauge on 4 August and at no time prior to the 17 January 2004 did I refuse to meet Bob Wingrave - see data file marked with Annexure “C and letters dated 17 January 2003, 4 March 2004, 19 July 2004, 26 August 2004 and marked with Annexures D, E, F

It concerns me that despite the fact that your letter clearly indicates and acknowledges that this matter has never been investigated that you can go on to say that it will not be investigated.   The Minister ordered an investigation; Policy and Procedure require that allegations of this nature be subject to a formal investigation.   The time frame in relation to these allegations is irrelevant as complaints were made well within the required time period and frame.  The fact that the system has failed to provide my family with procedural fairness and natural justice in a timely, or any manner, should not be something that they can then use to justify ignoring and avoiding addressing allegations and/or formal complaints.

It is not the role of the Selective Schools Unit to decide for themselves what the terms of resolution should be.  There are Policies and Procedures in place that deal with this process to ensure transparency, integrity and accountability that the Department has seriously breached, many times over.

In relation to the original allegations/complaints made in 2002/3 with regard to my two eldest children I was advised that the Ombudsman would not investigate any of the allegations that I raised in relation to the Applications and/or Appeals because I couldn’t get (as they had either been destroyed or the Department wouldn’t provide it) the evidence/documents that the Ombudsman said I needed to prove, to their satisfaction, that the scores had been added up wrong in the first instance,  see letter attached dated 28 April 2003 and marked with the letter “I”.  The letter clearly states that a key issue was whether I had provided evidence that the department calculated the score wrongly.  The Ombudsman considered we had not done so and refused to investigate or address the complaints.   The letter also stated that the Ombudsman would not investigate the handling of my daughters application because she had already been admitted to one school and that there was no purpose in investigating the matter.  What the Ombudsman didn’t address is that my daughter appealed the decision not to place her in the school of her choice and the score presented by the Selective Schools unit to the Appeals panel on which they were required to make their decision was a manipulated and incorrectly calculated lower score and a misrepresentation of the facts.

My family took the Department of Education to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) to get these documents so as to prove what we knew to be true and what we are alleging.   The ADT handed down judgment on the 13 April 2006 that the Department of Education was ordered provide the documents in relation to the calculation of the scores as sought.  $25,000.00 later and sometime down the track my family was provided with the document that the Ombudsman’s office said we needed to prove the scores had been calculated wrongly and that was required in order to investigate the earlier complaints and, of course, the subsequent complaints and allegations. This document clearly shows that the Department has acted improperly in the calculation and presentation of the scores and this document was provided to your office in September 2006 with a request that the matter be subject to a proper and fair investigation so as to protect the children. Your letter makes no reference to that document or request and just states that the matter was previously finally closed and is now too old? This action clearly denies my family procedural fairness and natural justice.

2. You did not receive an outcome to the “Responding to Suggestions, Complaint and Allegations” form you lodged in June 2004 in regard to your daughter Katie’s writing Ella test 2004 and your sons selective High School placement for 2004.

My complaint was that the reason given in the letter from the Legal office of the Department of Education for not investigating fresh allegations of bias and victimisation lodged in 2004 was that they referred to similar allegations as in 2002/3 and that these allegations have already been investigated.  This is, by your own admission, NOT TRUE as these earlier complaints and allegations have never been investigated.

I enclose herewith a copy of internal emails dated 2 June 2004, 5 July 2004 and 8 August 2004 attached and marked with the letters “J”, “K” and “L”, clearly showing that the complaint was not investigated together with a copy of a letter from the Legal Directorate in relation to fresh allegations in 2004 dated marked with the letter “M” and dated  19 August  in which it states that they will not investigate  fresh allegations made  as they are similar allegations than those previously made and that those allegations had been investigated and closed?.  It is clear from these documents that the Department is not telling the truth and is conspiring to cover up the matter whilst continuing to victimize the children.

3.            Continued involvement of DET officers in dealing with your family despite your requests these officers should not be involved.

The fact that the complaints have never been accepted and properly acknowledged and investigated by the Department or the Ombudsman’s office have ensured that the people we allege are responsible have continued to be permitted to process my children’s applications and deal with my families complaints and to target, bully and discriminate against innocent children.     The evidence I have provided clearly shows that these people were fully involved in my families further applications including playing an active voting role in the Appeals panels despite formal allegations against them and despite specific requests that they not be permitted to have anything to do with my family given the circumstances and nature of complaints against them.   This is a clear breach as this is a conflict of interests/duties and raises some serious child protection issues.

Te Department of Education did not have an independent Probity Officer at the meetings, they had one of the officers from the Department, and the officer involved had already been involved in this matter and had been briefed, he was not impartial as he was presented to be.

4.         Mr Dave Wasson’s participation in a decision making process despite evidence via Freedom of Information that he had “been fully involved in the matter of our previous complaints and other children”.

Mr Wasson, from the Educational Measurement Directorate was originally presented to us as somebody who had not had anything previously to do with this matter or my children and was therefore an impartial and unbiased person to process my younger daughter Amanda’s applications. The evidence produced under FOI clearly shows that this is not the case and that he was extensively involved in the matter with my older children and he was well aware that this matter had not been subject to an investigation as ordered by the Minister and knew of the allegations that were being made. He is factored into emails and is also mentioned and involved in numerous file memos that specifically refer to the fact that the investigation ordered by the Minister never took place, despite it being continuously presented as though it had.

The failure of the DET to honour agreements made at the ADT in August 2003.

I again re-iterate. Mr Wingrave is one of the persons that I had made formal allegations against of bias and victimisation. I had advised the Minister for Education that due to the manner that he had treated my family previously and the seriousness of the allegations against him that we didn’t feel safe in his presence and that we wanted, and believed we should be entitled, to deal with impartial and independent persons in relation to this complaint. The Department would not agree to this.  See Judgment from ADT dated 13 April 2006 annexed and marked “N” – 10 pages.

All the agreements made at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal on 18 August 2003 have still not been honoured by the Department of Education. There are Policies and Procedures and Codes of Conduct in place that the Department has seriously breached, many times over.

If the DET is prepared to provide a safe environment with access to all the information required, including test answer templates, in relation to all my children’s Opportunity Class and Selective High School tests, including my daughter Amanda’s I will be happy to have this FOI aspect of the ADT agreement finalized. I also request that when the issues are being discussed in relation to the process used by the Department and in relation to the missing documents and discrepancies shown on the documents that I will require an independent person to those involved from the Department of Education and a Solicitor to be present together with my support person and I seek that this appointment be at a later date to the viewing of the tests so as to enable us time to process the information presented at the viewing of the tests and prepare for the meeting. This is in line with the original agreement. I seek your written confirmation that this will be agreed upon and the Department will honour their agreements in full.

6. Destruction of the following documents
   1. Selective school test paper and original answer sheets in 2002 for placement for 2003 for Danny Challita
   2. Selective School test paper and original answer sheets in 2002 for placement in 2003 for Katie Challita.

You state in your letter that the documents were destroyed by the Australian Council for Educational Research Limited (ACER) shortly before the request was made to have them put aside.  I put it to you that you have been told a lie.  We requested these original documents be set aside under an FOI application in  November 2002.   The Department challenged our right to access these particular answer sheets and test documents.   We corresponded extensively in relation to access to these original documents there was an internal review. On 16 May 2003 I lodged an Application at the ADT for forced access to these original documents – see attached and marked with the letter “O”. On 18 June 2003 the matter was listed for planning meeting at the ADT see annexure marked with the letter P.  I attach a copy of an email from John Lindsay from ACER that clearly states that the original answer sheets were destroyed on 18 June 2003 – attached and marked with the letter “Q”.  The same day the matter was listed for planning meeting at the ADT – see attached!   The Department of Education is again lying and not telling the truth.   The documents were not destroyed before the request was made to have them put aside, they were destroyed on the day the matter was being first put before the ADT to force access to those exact documents. 

This clearly shows a breach in Policy, the State Records Act and in the Ombudsman’s Maladministration or wrong Conduct Act.

These test papers were in relation to the initial, and at the time current, conflicts.   They were not in relation to past conflicts as you have been advised. That you believe that there is absence of evidence of wrong conduct by the authority is just bizarre given the evidence that my family have provided.

7.      Provision of documents ordered at the ADT on 13 April 2006.

Throughout these matters and proceedings the Department of Education have used delay tactics so that time factors come into play, they have destroyed documents and tampered with scores and papers and avoided providing documentation even when ordered to do so by the Court.   That I am forced to take the matter to the Supreme Court to get access to all the documents ordered by the ADT to be produced in April 2006 is just plain wrong.  That I can find no avenue to get protection and justice for my children is unreal and grossly unfair.

8.      That Ms Pollak gave evidence before the ADT in December 2006 that was “untrue and misrepresented the matter”. 

      

You advise that the Ombudsman’s office is not permitted under the Ombudsman’s Act to investigate this type of conduct?  This shows the Ombudsman’s office as being incapable of fulfilling its role as a corruption watchdog and investigatory body.

9. Misrepresentation in Annual Report.          

You state in your letter that I advised that the DET had misrepresented the financial implications of our complaint in the Freedom of Information section of its most recent Annual report.  I advise that what I stated was that in the submissions by the Selective Schools Unit to the Ministers etc., produced under FOI, copies of which I forwarded to your office, it is noted in all submissions that there are no financial implications in relation to this matter and I know this for a fact not to be true as do you. 

I advised you that the Annual report did not include the 2 (out of the three) FOI matters that progressed for hearing and were heard over 3 days in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal on 18 October, 29 November and 1 December 2005, see attached and marked with the letter “R”.  The annual report just refers to one FOI Application that the Judiciary Member referred back to the Department for consideration in relation to the fees the Department sought to charge.  The report presents this FOI issue as though the complaint was withdrawn and this is not true – see attached Decision by the Judiciary Member and marked with the letter “S”.   There is no mention anywhere in the annual report that there were 3 days of hearings in relation to the other 2 separate FOI issues in 2005. This is significant and clearly shows that the Department is covering this matter up.

10.            More recent decisions

You state that you have reviewed the papers that I have provided in relation to my daughter Amanda’s selective high school applications and that you do not believe these disclose evidence of wrong conduct by the authority that would justify investigation under the Ombudsman’s Act.

Despite the fact that we formally requested that Magda Pollak not be involved in anything to do with my daughter as there have been serious allegations made against her, documents produced under FOI and that are in your possession clearly show that my daughters Selective High School application was controlled and processed internally by Magda Pollak and given to others to sign their name as though it came from them.  This is a clear conflict of duties/interests and is in breach of the Ombudsmans Maladministration and wrong conduct Act.

You will note in the Submission attached and dated 13 Januarry 2006 Magda Pollack makes reference to the IQ report lodged by my daughter to support my daughters application for Selective High School placement see annexure marked with the letter “T” on page 4 of 8 pages.  Magda Pollak presents the IQ report in the submission as the Stanford Binet LM (SBLM), she then goes on to say that this is an old outdated test that Gerric, (Gifted Research Centre at the University of New South Wales),  uses to achieve higher inflated marks and it is an invalid test and that the Department of Education does not accept this IQ report..   This is a total misrepresentation of facts and a lie.  The IQ report that we presented was the Stanford Binet (1V) see attached and marked with the letter “R”.    The SB4 is not an old outdated report, it is a current and active report and findings are valid and accepted by the Department of Education.  This is not the first time that Magda Pollak has misrepresented the type of IQ report presented in order to discount the findings and not factor it in.   

This is a clear conflict of duties/interests and is in breach of the Ombudsmans Maladministration and wrong conduct Act.

My question to you once again is “What evidence do you need?”  I have provided ample evidence of lies; bias, misrepresentations, tampering and manipulation just to name a few and it doesn’t seem to be enough.  What does the Ombudsman require in order to investigate serious allegations that involve children?

You also do not appear to have addressed the issue of documents produced under FOI showing me as having been deemed vexatious early in 2004 by Magda Pollack, a key player that we allege is responsible, and the matter being presented in internal emails/memos as having been closed on that basis that I have been deemed a vexatious correspondent.  The Department of Education has never directly notified me of this, they have black-marked my family internally and unfairly without giving us an opportunity to defend ourselves.  All our complaints and allegations were lodged in writing and as per policy and procedure require and within the required time frames and were supported by extensive documentation/evidence.  There was nothing vexatious in our correspondence just desperate pleas to be afforded procedural fairness and natural justice so as to protect the children.    This action clearly shows victimization on the part of the Department of Education.

Section 26 of the Ombudsman Act 1974 lists the following types of conduct that we can report about:

Contrary to Law (s.26(1)(a))

Unreasonable (s.26(1)(b))

Unjust (s.26(1)(b))

Oppressive (s.26(1)(b))

Improperly discriminatory (s.26(1)(b))Law or practice unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory (s.26(1)(c))

Improper motives (s.26(1)(d))

Irrelevant grounds/ considerations (s.26(1)(d))

Mistake of fact (s.26(1)(e))

Failure to give reasons (s.26(1)(f))

Otherwise wrong (s.26(1)(g))

There are numerous and excessive breaches in the Ombudsman’s’ Act that have not been acted upon.

I request a formal review of the Ombudsman’s decision. This matter is serious as it involves systematic bias, victimization, discrimination, misconduct and a conspiracy to cover up that involves children.  There are serious child protection issues that need to be addressed.  My husband and I once again request that our family be afforded procedural fairness and natural justice and this matter be subject to a proper and fair investigation.

Ombudsman's response and draft reply

page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5 , page 6, page 7

Draft Reply to Ombudsman

I post hereunder a draft copy of my reponse to the Ombudsmans recent letter. A letter advising me that he had decided that it would not be appropriate or justified to make my families complaints the subject of a formal Investigation under the Ombudsmans Act. I seek assistance from the Public in relation to the wording of my letter so as to ensure that my response and request for a review of the decision is clear and concise. I would like to seek the Public's opinion on the manner and process used in relation to this issue.

Letter to the Ombudsman

I refer to your letter dated 16 March 2007 and am concerned about the amount of lies that the Department of Education/Selective Schools Unit has presented to you that you appear to have accepted on face value, despite the evidence/documents not supporting this view, especially given that this information has influenced your decision not to investigate these serious ongoing formal allegations.

I will deal with the allegations that I presented in sections as set out by you in your letter in response to me dated 16 March 2007:

1.      The Minister for Education promised an investigation would take place, which did not occur.

You state in your letter that my letter to the then Minister for Education, Mr. Refshauge of 24 June 2003 crossed with another letter from the Minister to me dated 17 June 2003.  This is not true.  In my letter dated 24 June 2003 I refer to the Ministers letter dated 17 June 2003 – see attached and marked “A” and “B”.  I was responding to the letter from the Minister dated 17 June 2003!   The Minister then responded to my letter of 24 June 2003 on 4 August 2003 (see attached and marked “C”) saying that an investigation would be commenced and that Mr. Chris Carroll would contact me.  This investigation is yet to take place and the evidence I have provided supports what I say to be the truth.

This raises serious questions in relation to the undated letter that you refer to with reference (RML 03/5996) – see attached and marked “D”.  This undated letter was never previously seen or received by me.   In that undated letter it states that the allegations have been previously responded to and that the Department is waiting for me to contact Mr. Wingrave.  This letter is not dated and it bears the exact same reference as the letter from the Minister dated 4 August 2003 (RML 03/5996)  saying that an investigation is to be commenced and that I would be contacted by Mr. Chris Carroll in relation to same.

On many occasions documents have been requested under the FOI Act in relation to this complaint and questions have been asked and never has this undated letter that you refer to ever shown itself, or been referred to, until now when provided by you?  My concern is that these two letters with the same reference numbers (RML 03/5996)  saying completely different things have met with foul play and the one from the Minister for Education  to me dated 4 August 2003 advising that an investigation had been commenced has been internally changed with the undated letter that  present a different internal picture of the situation.

Submissions produced under FOI clearly show that the information that was presented in the RML’s and Submissions was presented to the Minister for Education by those we allege are responsible, including draft responses, and what they presented was accepted on face value despite the fact that the evidence that was presented by my family clearly showed that the Department was not telling the truth.

You acknowledge that in ‘the undated letter’ it presents that my concerns were investigated by the Ombudsman’s office.  You note and agree that this advice is not true.  The whole letter and the 'so called' submission dated 2 July 2003 is based on misrepresentation and lies yet you allow it to be used and carry so much weight?

At no time was the Department waiting for me to contact Mr. Wingrave in relation to the formal complaint with respect to the handing of these matters.   I was waiting to hear from Mr. Chris Caroll in relation to the investigation of the handling of the applications and complaints. I believed this process had been commenced and was taking place as per the Ministers letter to me dated 4 August 2003. I explained many times that there were two aspects to this complaint, the FOI aspect and the formal allegations of bias and misconduct and unfiar and unjust handling of the complaints.   I was already in contact with Mr. Wingrave in relation to a meeting to discuss the documents and papers and had spoken to him on 30 June 2003 in relation to same as shown in the attached data sheet. I had also discussed the FOI aspects and requests and Mr Wingrave when the matter was listed at the ADT.  On the day the matter was for hearing on 18 August 2003 we organized a viewing for 27 August 2007 of the test booklets and the department’s electronic records of my children’s answers; we had to use their electronic records as they destroyed their original answer sheets .  At that meeting my family was bullied and harassed and we left without having been given a proper opportunity to do our job.

This was supposed to be an opportunity for my children to check their test papers and answers in a secure and safe environment but the meeting was sabotaged and my family left distressed.

I  spoke by telephone to Mr. Wingrave on 30 June 2003 in relation to organising a meeting to discuss aspects of the documents/papers.I advised Mr. Wingrave that I was happy to meet, but I wanted an impartial person from the Department present and a Solicitor to be present, see attached extract from Data File and marked with the letter “E”  Mr. Wingrave advised that he would have to seek instructions and get back to me .   I requested a meeting many times with a Solicitor present and they refused to agree to a Solicitor being present .

I was subsequently told by Bob Wingrave that he would only see me personally about the matter and that it didn’t matter whether I found his excuses/explanations reasonable or even acceptable that the matter would be closed and correspondence from me filed without acknowledgment. 

I  wrote to the Minister for Education on 17 January 2004, see attached and marked the letter “F”, in relation to this advice and treatment received from Mr. Wingrave and in relation to the further allegations of  bullying and victimization aimed at my children by Mr. Wingrave and others at the original test  viewing in August 2003.  My family left the viewing very distressed.   I advised the Minister that I would not agree to meet alone with Mr. Wingrave or the others involved in this matter with regard to these serious allegations that included the bullying and harassment of my children by bureaucrats at the viewing. My letter was ignored and I was unable to get a response.

I requested this meeting again in a letter dated 4 March 2004, see attached and marked with the letter “G”.  This request was also ignored.

Mr. Carroll DID NOT contact me as promised by the Minister for Education nor did any investigation take place.  When I tried to enquire about the matter I was unable to get an answer or response as to what was going on.   The matter was not investigated by the Department as promised by the Minister and it was not investigated by the Ombudsman therefore the issues and allegations are still outstanding in relation to the different allegations and different complaints made in the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 that involve three of my 4 children. 

It concerns me that despite the fact that your letter clearly indicates and acknowledges that this matter has never been investigated that you can go on to say that it will not be investigated.   The Minister ordered an investigation; Policy and Procedure require that allegations of this nature be subject to a formal investigation.   The time frame in relation to this matter is irrelevant as all complaints were made in relation to the different instances well within the year and we have been for years trying to get issues addressed including fresh allegations of further and systematic victimization  to no avail.  The fact that the system has failed to provide my family with procedural fairness and natural justice in a timely, or any manner, should not be something that they can then use to justify ignoring and avoiding addressing allegations and/or formal complaints.

It is not the role of the Selective Schools Unit to decide for themselves what the terms of resolution should be.  There are Policies and Procedures in place that deal with this process to ensure transparency, integrity and accountability that the Department has seriously breached, many times over. 

2. You did not receive an outcome to the “Responding to Suggestions, Complaint and Allegations” form you lodged in June 2004 in regard to your daughter Katie’s writing Ella test 2004 and your sons selective High School placement for 2004.

My complaint was that the reason given in the letter from the Legal office of the Department of Education for not investigating fresh allegations of bias and victimisation lodged in 2004 was that they referred to similar allegations as in 2002/3 and that these allegations have already been investigated.  This is, by your own admission, NOT TRUE as these earlier complaints and allegations have never been investigated.   My children and family have been denied procedural fairness and natural justice.

I note that you have provided a copy of Mr. Murn’s letter dated 2 July 2004 – see attached and marked “H”.  I enclose herewith my response to him dated 18 July 2004 and marked with the letter “I”, together with his response to me dated 26 August 2004, marked with the letter “J”.  You will note that in his letter dated 26 August 2004 Mr Murn  also acknowledged that the investigation ordered by the Minister  has not taken place.

3.   Continued involvement of DET officers in dealing with your family despite your requests these officers should not be involved.         

The fact that the complaints have never been accepted and properly acknowledged and investigated by the Department or the Ombudsman’s office have ensured that the people we allege are responsible have continued to be permitted to process my children’s applications and deal with my families complaints and to target, bully and discriminate against innocent children.     The evidence I have provided clearly shows that these people were fully involved in my families further applications including playing an active voting role in the Appeals panels despite formal allegations against them and despite specific requests that they not be permitted to have anything to do with my family given the circumstances and nature of complaints against them.   This is a clear breach as this is a conflict of interests/duties.

The Department of Education did not have an independent Probity Officer at the meetings, they had one of the officers from the Department, and the officer involved had already been involved in this matter and had been briefed, he was not impartial as he was presented to be.

4.         Mr Dave Wasson’s participation in a decision making process despite evidence via Freedom of Information that he had “been fully involved in the matter of our previous complaints and other children”.

Mr Wasson, from the Educational Measurement Directorate was originally presented to us as somebody who had not had anything previously to do with this matter or my children and was therefore an impartial and unbiased person to process my younger daughter Amanda’s applications.  The evidence produced under FOI clearly shows that this is not the case and that he was extensively involved in the matter with my older children and he was well aware that this matter had not been subject to an investigation as ordered by the Minister and knew of the allegations that were being made.  He is factored into emails and is also mentioned and involved in numerous file memos that specifically refer to the fact that the investigation ordered by the Minister never took place, despite it being continuously presented as though it had.

5. The failure of the DET to honour agreements made at the ADT in August 2003.

I again re-iterate.  Mr Wingrave is one of the persons that I had made formal allegations against of bias and victimisation.  I had advised the Minister for Education in January 2004 that due to the manner that he had treated my family previously and the seriousness of the allegations against him that we didn’t feel safe in his presence and that we wanted, and believed we should be entitled, to deal with impartial and independent persons in relation to this complaint. The Department would not agree to this.  See Judgment from ADT dated 13 April 2006 annexed and marked “K” – 10 pages.

The agreements made at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal on 18 August 2003 have still not been honoured by the Department of Education. There are Policies and Procedures and Codes of Conduct in place that the Department has seriously breached, many times over. 

If the DET is prepared to provide a safe environment with access to all the information required, including answer templates, in relation to all my children’s Opportunity Class and Selective High School tests, including my daughter Amanda’s  I will be happy to have this aspect of the ADT agreement finalized.  I also request that when the issues are being discussed in relation to the process used by the Department and in relation to the discrepancies shown on the documents that I will require an independent person to those involved from the Department of Education and a Solicitor to be present together with my support person and I seek that this appointment be at a later date to the viewing of the tests so as to enable us time to process the information presented at the viewing of the tests and prepare for the meeting.  This is in line with the original agreement. I seek your written confirmation that this will be agreed upon and the Department will honour their agreements in full.

6. Destruction of the following documents
   1. Selective school test paper and original answer sheets in 2002 for placement for 2003 for Danny Challita

   2. Selective

      School

      test paper and original answer sheets in 2002 for placement in 2003 for Katie Challita.

You state in your letter that the documents were destroyed by the Australian Council for Educational Research Limited (ACER) shortly before the request was made to have them put aside.  I put it to you that you have been told a lie.  We requested these original documents be set aside under an FOI application end November 2002.   The Department challenged our right to access these particular answer sheets and test documents.   We corresponded extensively in relation to access to these original documents there was an internal review.  On 16 May 2003 I lodged an Application at the ADT for forced access to these original documents – see attached and marked with the letter “L”  On 18 June 2003 the matter was listed for planning meeting at the ADT see annexure marked with the letter M.  I attach a copy of an email from John Lindsay from ACER that clearly states that the original answer sheets were destroyed on 18 June 2003 – attached and marked with the letter “N”.  The same day the matter was listed for planning meeting at the ADT – see attached!   The Department of Education is again lying and not telling the truth.   The documents were not destroyed before the request was made to have them put aside, they were destroyed on the day the matter was being first put before the ADT to force access to those exact documents. 

This clearly shows a breach in Policy and in the Ombudsman’s Maladministration or wrong Conduct Act.

These test papers were in relation to the initial, and at the time current, conflicts.   They were not in relation to past conflicts as you have been advised.  That you believe that

there is absence of evidence of wrong conduct by the authority is just bizarre given the evidence that my family have provided.

7.      Provision of documents ordered at the ADT on 13 April 2006.

Throughout these matters and proceedings the Department of Education have used delay tactics so that time factors come into play,  they have destroyed documents and tampered with scores and papers and avoided providing documentation even when ordered to do so by the Court.   That I am forced to take the matter to the Supreme Court to get access to all the documents ordered by the ADT to be produced in April 2006 is just plain wrong.  That I can find no avenue to get protection and justice for my children is unreal and grossly unfair.

8.      That Ms Pollak gave evidence before the ADT in December 2006 that was “untrue and misrepresented the matter”.   

You advise that the Ombudsman’s office is not permitted under the Ombudsman’s Act to investigate this type of conduct?  This shows the Ombudsman’s office as being incapable of fulfilling its role as a corruption watchdog and investigatory body.

9. Misrepresentation in Annual Report.          

You state in your letter that I advised that the DET had misrepresented the financial implications of our complaint in the Freedom of Information section of its most recent Annual report.  I advise that what I stated was that in the submissions by the Selective Schools Unit to the Ministers etc., produced under FOI, copies of which I forwarded to your office, it is noted in all submissions that there are no financial implications in relation to this matter and I know this for a fact not to be true as do you. 

I advised you that the Annual report did not include the 2 (out of the three) FOI matters that progressed for hearing and were heard over 3 days in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal on 18 October, 29 November and 1 December 2005, see ttached and marked with the letter “O”.  The annual report just refers to one FOI Application that the Judiciary Member referred back to the Department for consideration in relation to the fees the Department sought to charge.  The report presents this FOI issue as though the complaint was withdrawn and this is not true – see attached Judgment by the Judiciary Member and marked with the letter “P”.   There is no mention anywhere in the annual report that there were 3 days of hearings in relation to the other 2 separate FOI issues in 2005. This is significant and clearly shows that the Department is covering this matter up.

10.       More recent decisions

You state that you have reviewed the papers that I have provided in relation to my daughter Amanda’s selective high school applications and that you do not believe these disclose evidence of wrong conduct by the authority that would justify investigation under the Ombudsman’s Act.

Despite the fact that we formally requested that Magda Pollak not be involved in anything to do with my daughter as there have been serious allegations made against her, documents produced under FOI and that are in your possession clearly show that my daughters Selective High School application was controlled and processed internally by Magda Pollak and given to others to sign their name as though it came from them.  This is a clear conflict of duties/interests and is in breach of the Ombudsmans Maladministration and wrong conduct Act.

You will note in the Submission attached and dated 13 Januarry 2006 Magda Pollack makes reference to the IQ report lodged by my daughter to support my daughters application for

Selective

High School

placement see annexure marked with the letter “Q” on page 4 of 8 pages.  Magda Pollak presents the IQ report in the submission as the Stanford Binet LM (SBLM), she then goes on to say that this is an old outdated test that Gerric, (Gifted Research Centre at the University of New South Wales),  uses to achieve higher inflated marks and it is an invalid test and that the Department of Education does not accept this IQ report..   This is a total misrepresentation of facts and a lie.  The IQ report that we presented was the Stanford Binet (1V) see attached and marked with the letter “R”.    The SB4 is not an old outdated report, it is a current and active report and findings are valid and accepted by the Department of Education.  This is not the first time that Magda Pollak has misrepresented the type of IQ report presented in order to discount the findings and not factor it in.   

This is a clear conflict of duties/interests and is in breach of the Ombudsmans Maladministration and wrong conduct Act.

My question to you once again is “What evidence do you need?”  I have provided ample evidence of lies; bias, misrepresentations, tampering and manipulation just to name a few and it doesn’t seem to be enough.  What does the Ombudsman require in order to investigate serious allegations that involve children?

Originally in relation to the earlier allegations made in 2002/3 with regard to my two eldest children I was advised that the Ombudsman would not investigate any of the allegations in relation to the Applications and Appeals because I couldn’t get (as they had either been destroyed or the Department wouldn’t provide it) the evidence/documents that the Ombudsman said I needed to prove, to their satisfaction, that the scores had been added up wrong in the first instance,  see letter attached dated 28 April 2003 and marked with the letter “S”.  The letter clearly states that the key issue was whether I had provided evidence that the department calculated the score wrongly.  The Ombudsman considered we had not done so and refused to investigate or address the complaints.  My family took the Department of Education to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) to get these documents so as to prove what we knew to be true and what we are alleging.   The ADT handed down judgment on the 13 April 2006 that the Department of Education was ordered provide the documents in relation to the calculation of the scores as sought.  $25,000.00 later and sometime down the track my family was provided with the document that the Ombudsman’s office said we needed to prove the scores had been calculated wrongly and that was required in order to investigate the earlier complaints and, of course, the subsequent complaints and allegations.   This document clearly shows that the Department has acted improperly in the calculation and presentation of the scores and this document was provided to your office in September 2006 with a request that the matter be subject to a proper and fair investigation so as to protect the children.  Your letter makes no reference to that document or request and just states that the matter is now too old and closed.   

You also do not appear to have addressed the issue of documents produced under FOI showing me as having been deemed vexatious early in 2004 by Magda Pollack, a key player that we allege is responsible, and the matter being presented in internal emails/memos as having been closed on that basis that I have been deemed a vexatious person.  The Department of Education has never directly notified me of this, they have black-marked my family internally and unfairly without giving us an opportunity to defend ourselves.  All our complaints and allegations were lodged in writing and as per policy and procedure require and were supported by extensive documentation/evidence.  There was nothing vexatious in our correspondence just desperate pleas to be afforded procedural fairness and natural justice so as to protect the children.   

Section 26 of the Ombudsman Act 1974 lists the following types of conduct that we can report about:

Contrary to Law (s.26(1)(a))

Unreasonable (s.26(1)(b))

Unjust (s.26(1)(b))

Oppressive (s.26(1)(b))

Improperly discriminatory (s.26(1)(b))Law or practice unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory (s.26(1)(c))

Improper motives (s.26(1)(d))

Irrelevant grounds/ considerations (s.26(1)(d))

Mistake of fact (s.26(1)(e))

Failure to give reasons (s.26(1)(f))

Otherwise wrong (s.26(1)(g))

There are numerous and excessive breaches in the Ombudsmans’ Act that have not been acted upon.

We request a formal review of the Ombudsman’s decision. This matter is serious as it involves systematic bias, victimization, discrimination, misconduct and a conspiracy to cover up that involves children.  There are serious child protection issues that need to be addressed.  My husband and I  once again request  that our  family be afforded procedural fairness and natural justice and this matter be subject to a proper and fair investigation.

DELAY AFTER DELAY

I am upset with the Ombudsman and irritated and angry at the Department of Education.

I am still waiting for a determination from the Ombudsman as to whether the Ombudsman’s office will be investigating complaints  my family are making.  I have been told repeatedly that a letter is on its way but it never arrives and when I ring they say the matter is on the desk and it will take a few more days.  This has been happening since July 2006.

The Selective Schools Unit have been sitting on a recent FOI applications Internal Review since mid January 2007, the turnaround should be 21 days or a notification should be given to say that there is a delay.  I have heard nothing.  There are also the issues that the cheques for payment for these FOI documents have not been presented to the bank and this whole FOI process started in November 2006.

It seems to me that they are delaying addressing anything to do with my family, either indefinitely, or at least until after the next election and they are not entering the matter into their internal systems and that is why they are not responding and/or processing the cheques. 

I think the Ombudsman will probably tell me after the election that they have decided to decline investigating the complaints.  This is despite the fact that the evidence that I have provided him with clearly supports everything that I say including the fact that  there is a conspiracy to cover up this matter up.  They know that after the election the media will be saturated and nobody is going to give a dam about a few intellectually gifted children and some ordinary citizens.   They dont want anything to negatively  impact on the repuation of the Government and by extension them.

Millions of taxpayers money that should be spent providing for and fixing the system is being spent defending it from criticism so as to pretend that everything is okay and playing a popularity game.

That's really bad management. To think that they do this just to save a bit of face.

BEING WATCHED & CONTROLLED

I have decided not to post my movements in relation to my families complaints on my blog for a while because in documents produced under FOI it shows that the Department of Education is monitoring my blog, and what I say on the internet, and they have worked out the process so that they have blocked  me from being afforded procedural fairness and natural justice.

An document from the Selective Schools Unit clearly notes that on my blog I have said that I have written to the Premier Morris Iemma.  Then there is a submission to the Premier telling him lies about me and telling him that the matter has been investigated (a lie) and that I am a vexatious person (a lie) and that the matter is closed.

As a result of this "Submission" to the Premier filled with lies my family have not received a response to our complaint to the Premier, despite the matter being of a serious nature and it involving the welfare and well-being of children,   nor have we received a response from the Director General of Education both of whom we sent evidence that clearly showed that the Department of Education was guilty of what is being alleged and they are lying to cover the matter up and not telling the truth.

It is just all so unfair.

NEWS - BEFORE IT HAPPENS

This is called GETTING THE NEWS BEFORE IT HAPPENS.  See if the media had of picked up my families story from Today Tonight, his is what the Department would have said.  This is a briefing to the Minister in relation to the Today Tonight Program headed:

Issues management for possibly adverse media coverage of coaching and selective high school entry DGS/06/2290

ISSUE:

Issues management for possibly adverse media coverage of coaching and selective high school entry.

BACKGROUND:

The television program.  Today tonight, has advertised a segment on the program due to air on 20 Monday 2006 which may take the position that gifted students are missing out on selective high school entry because other students are being coached for the Selective High School test and do not deserve placement.

Mrs J Challita of Miranda has a long-standing history of grievance with various agencies of the DET but has been most dissatisfied with the processing of her various applications for opportunity class and selective high school entry for three of her four children since 2000.   A full chronology and analysis is attached at TAB A

Mrs Challita publishes her opinions and the progress of her campaigns on her web log at http://jolandachalilta.typpad.com/education/.  On Sunday 29 November 2006 she announced that she had been interviewed by someone from Today Tonight on the subject of selective high school entry.

COMMENT:

Mrs Challita's description on her web site of the current affairs television problem's focus is as follows:

Their focus is on how coaching has impacted the Selective Schools and about identified gifted children missing out and this was in relation to my youngest daughter Amanda, even though they also asked about the others.

When the lady saw her school reports, her IQ tests and her other test results she couldn’t believe that Amanda missed out and lost her appeal.   She even asked me whether we believe the marks and we told her the truth and that is NO!

SUGGESTED RESPONSE:

1. Increasingly very gifted and highly achieving students are seeking coaching as another forum for familiarizing themselves with the test techniques and format of the Selective High Schools Tests.  These students are likely to be successful whether or not they were coached.

2. If the wrong students were being placed in selective high schools, the selective
High school cohorts would not produce the excellent and consistent results that they do in external tests such as the HSC.

3. Every year more than 13,000 students apply for 3,600 positions in selective high schools.  About 1,000 students are placed on reserve lists and about 8,000 students are unsuccessful.

4. Routinely, a number of parents of unsuccessful candidates believe that there must be a problem with the selection process if it did not identify their children.  These parents do not have access to the test and school marks presented by other students and are not in a position to gauge the academic quality of successful candidates.

5. The students who gain the most benefit out of selective high school placement are those who have academic ability or potential as well as achieving marks at school.  They are, in other words, both gifted (ability) and talented (performance).  The DET gifted and talented policy has adopted definitions of giftedness and talent based on Gane’s (2003) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent.

“Gifted students are those whose potential is distinctly above average in one or more of the following domains of human ability:  intellectual, creative, social and physical.

Talented students are those whose skills are distinctly above average in one or more areas of human performance.”

6. The Selective High Schools Test is only one component of the profile score for selective high school placement.  There is a school assessment component which is worth half the overall English and half the overall mathematics mark.  The Selective High School test measures ability and the school assessment scores measure performance.

7. Two of Mrs. Challita’s children were successful for opportunity class entry although her daughter was withdrawn by Mrs Challita from the opportunity class.  While her son was subsequently unsuccessful for selective high school entry.  Her daughter accepted placement at a selective high school and still attends that school.

8. Her younger daughter Amanda has been unsuccessful for both opportunity class and selective high school entry.  She had to be considered for selective high school entry on the basis of test marks alone as she was being distance educated at the time of application.

9. An IQ test alone does not guarantee that students will perform very well in a cohort of students who are both gifted and highly achieving.  Evidence of performance tendered by Amanda in a Year 4 school report did not indicate that the student was working beyond the expected stage outcomes in most areas.

10. Mrs. Challita has made public allegations that her children’s opportunity class and selective high school entry scores were deliberately falsified.  There is no substance to these allegations but they have been made so often and so publicly that selection committee meetings and the appeals panel relevant to the Amanda’s application were monitored by an observer from the Audit Directorate.

FUNDING IMLICATIONS: 

Not applicable

CONSULTATION:

Not applicable

MEDIA RELEASES:

The dot points above could be used by the Media Unit to prepare a media release, if applicable

RECOMMENDATION (S):

That the Minster notes the advice and passes it on to the Media Unit, if applicable.

This advice has been prepared by Magda Pollak, Manager, Selective Schools High School and Opportunity Class Placement Unit, tel"  ..........................

Max Smith -  R/Director, Educational Measuremtn and School Accountability. 20 November 2006

Gillian Shadwick - General Manager, Learning and Development   - November 2006

Trevor Fletcher - Deputy Direction-General (Schools) -  November 2006

Andrew Cappie Wood - Director-General of Education and Training, Managing Director of TAFE NSW

Minister:

My response:  At this point I wont address the first bits as they are in the past but suffice to say that the person who wrote this submission is a person that my family has made serious allegations against of bias and victimisation.  We have  numerous occcasions pleaded to be afforded procedural fairness, and we have requested that this person not be permitted to have anything to do with our family matters or with the complaints given the nature of the allegations against her.  Our requestes have been ignored.

Those preparing my daughters matters are not presenting the truth in relation to my daughters application for Selective High School for 2007.  We had supplied not only 2 IQ tests but also her end of year public school report from Year 4.  You apply for Selective High School placement in Year 5.  In that report my daughter was shown to be beyond stage outcomes for her year level in the key areas of English and Maths, she was shown to be working at a high level within her year with the majority of other areas and in a number of areas i.e, computer and piano, she was stated as being satisfactory – but trust me that is debatable!   

All this evidence of academic public school achievement was provided to the Selective Schools Unit to present to the Selection Committee with her Public School Presentation day Award for Excellence in Literacy and numeracy.  The Distance Education Office also offered to provide input.   

We had asked for Amanda to be exempt from sitting the Selective High School test and that Amanda be assessed on the basis of her identified needs as my family have had so much issues with the tests and the education of our children  that it caused my children despair and they suffered anxiety and stress and it isn't fair to put children through so much stress.  But our request was refused.  The Selective System said that either Amanda  sits the test or they do not process the application.   

She really wanted to go to Opportunity Class as she really functioned at a very fast pace and level and she craved to learn and her local school had indicated that they didn’t know whether they could meet her needs in Year 5 as they did not know whether they could organize the class set up.  That year, in year 4, they had put her in a 4/5/6 composite.  It meant alot to my daughter.

Whilst we didn’t have her school marks for the Selective High School test as Amanda was on Distance Education, marks had been provided for the Opportunity class test by the public school and they were 95% for maths and 95% for English.  Her IQ was measured by the DET and the UNSW on different tests 4 years apart and both  put her IQ between 145 and 150.   

She was unsuccessful and lost her appeal.    My daughter was in a Public school and she had to leave to get her needs met.    They keep doing this to my children again and again. 

CAUSES AND EVIDENCE OF SUSPICION

As stated below on Saturday 10 December 2006 I received the documents that I requested under FOI in relation to my daughter Amanda's selective high school application for 2007.  In it were some really interesting things, of course there were some documents missing and I have to now deal with that but there were some particular documents that I found really interesting and I am going to detail it here below and attach the evidence so that those of you can decide whether it is me that is being unreasonable or whether the Department that is being unreasonable and unfair.   

In the documents there was an attachment to a submission headed - PROBABLE CAUSES OF MRS. CHALLITA'S SUSPICION these are in bold  - (my responses are in italic)

1.   Individual IQ tests are conducted by registered psychologists as a dialogue with the students, with little or no writing involved.  It is quite customary for students with high IQ scores not to score as highly on the timed, multiple-choice group tests, which form the Selective High School test.

This is a very interesting entry because on the Application for OC and Selective School placement it actually states that because it is an ability test that coaching doesn't make a difference, yet they seem to know that high IQ students that haven't practiced timed multiple choice tests are not being successful in getting marks high enough to get in!

2.  The three children have IQ test results ranging from 147 - 161. These scores identify the students as gifted but they do not form the basis for opportunity class or selective high school entry.

3.  Because Mrs. Challita seems to believe that her children must be suitable candidates for selective high school and opportunity class entry by virtue of their high IQ scores, she seems to assume that results on state wide tests like the Selective High School tests which show the children performing at a lower level relative to the other students in the state must have been tampered with.

I assumed no such thing.  Because these tests marks did not represent any of my children's achievements  in all their years of education and they said that they had to see the tests to believe it  we requested access to documents under FOI.  In these documents there is alarming evidence that shows that there has been bias, manipulation, tampering and misconduct in relation to Opportunity Class and Selective High school placement for 3 of my children during the period 2000 to 2006.

Because my children were obvious highly gifted children to such a degree that they were unable to get their identified educational needs met in the comprehensive system and they were suffering from neglect, boredom, frustration, underachievement and psychological distress that affected them mentally and physically I did believe that under the Education Act that it was the duty of the department, if they cannot adequately cater for them in the comprehensive system,  to place them into the schools that they have designed to best meet their needs as identified gifted children with special abilities.

4.  In 2002 the Selection Committee of St. George Girls High School used an erroneous calculation to incorporate the IQ score into Katie's profile score.  The error was noticed, corrected and memoed before result letters were distributed.  Katie was successful for St George Girls High school on the recalculated score incorporating the IQ.

5.  Mrs.  Challita was inadvertently sent a copy of her daughter's data sheet showing the erroneous calculation and the fact that it had been corrected.  When she requested the data sheet officially through FOI some months later, the memo had been partially deleted to provide room for further entries.

The data sheet in question dated 4 September 2002 came stuck by a paper clip inbeween my children's marks result letter.  The letter advising of marks was dated 10 September and that letter showed marks that did not represent any of my daughters acheivements in all her education and that did not add up or make sense.

The memo in question was not partially deleted.  All the entries changing the score, under the guise of an error in calculation, to a much lower score than that shown to be allocated by the Selection Committee on the data file dated 17 September 2002 and officially requested in November 2002 were deleted.

The data file formally produced under FOI showed a much higher score as the calculation of the awarded 1/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT score.  1/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT means 1/3 of a profile score of a calculated IQ developed by the SSU and 2/3's of the General Ability test taken on the day was used to determine placement.  A fresh data file produced in November 2005 still showed the higher score as the calculation of 1/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT.

However, what they don't say is that my daughter was unsuccessful for her first choice of Selective School placement and she requested that we appeal the decision not to place her in Sydney Girls and on the appeal analysis prepared by the Selective Schools Unit and presented to the Appeal Panel the lower deleted incorrectly calculated score of 214.26 was presented as the score on which to base the decision together with biased personal opinions and a total misrepresentation of the facts.  The process was manipulated, biased and flawed.

It is also a fact that documents requested under FOI at the ADT early this year included the IQ profile calculation document.  This document was ordered to be provided and this document gives the information on IQ's to be able to calculate the 1/3 IQ score, the data file provided the information to calculate the 2/3 Gat score and that document proves that the lower score was incorrectly calculated .

We don't buy the excuse that they say that the deleted score of 214.26 is the right score and the 232.19 score produced under FOI is the wrong score; having it verified by  the word of one of the persons that you allege are involved doesn't make it fact.  What they are essentially saying is that they had to delete the right score to make room for the wrong score?

It is also a fact that during hearings at the ADT it was established that the only method of noting what happened at the Selection Committee meetings in by insertion by the Selective schools unit on to the data file.  The leaders of the Selective Schools Unit run and head the Selection Committee meetings and Appeals panel and they even have voting rights on the Appeal Panels and they prepare the appeal analysis and present all the information etc, and they have the computers in front of them where apparently they note what happened.  There is no paper trial so I find it hard to believe that they would have to remove results that cannot be otherwise traced to make way for other information! 

6.  The Sydney Girls High School selection committee chose not to incorporate the IQ at all so the matter of the erroneous calculation did not apply.  Mrs. Challita has been unable to accept this despite the number of ways it has been offered.

The Selective Schools Unit were the ones that decided that the IQ report was out of date and they chose not to present it to the Selection Committees or Appeals Panel on the basis that they said it was over two years old.  We were not advised that reports had to be less than two years old and that it had been deemed invalid and they did not advise the Selection Committees or Appeal panel that the report was 2 years 3 months old when lodged, nor did they advise the results of the IQ test.

It should be noted that in the most recent FOI documents produced there is a document in response to a letter from my solicitor in relation to the issue with reports having to be less than 2 years old that says:

"The unit has been advised in previous years that IQ reports should not be considered unless they are two years old or under.  In response to the question from Mrs. Challita's solicitors, clarification about the currency of IQ tests was sought from Greg Rowe, Manager Student Counseling.  He indicated that the two year limit on validity of IQ tests was a myth which had developed as a result of a misunderstanding of the requirement that students not be tested again within two years of any previous test because of the practice effect.  Somehow this was turned around and interpreted to mean that students HAD to be tested every two years and that IQ's older than that were invalid.  Whether or not an IQ test can be considered valid is actually a matter of a counselor's professional judgment."

The process was flawed.

7.  In response to her FOI requests, Dr. John Lindsay of ACER provided a copy of the students' answers.  In transcribing the file, Dr. Lindsay inadvertently included the initial C, (which Danny had wrongly listed as his middle initial) as the first answer and therefore provided a line with 61 answers instead of 60.  That explanation was not accepted either.

This is in relation to my sons 2000 OC application, he was advised of a 5/20 result in maths.  My son indicated that there was no way that he could have scored so low.  He is very gifted in maths and he didn't find the test that difficult.  When we requested to see a copy of his test and original answer sheet we were advised that they had been destroyed and that all answer sheets get destroyed after one year and they only had the computer generated information.

We wrote to ACER and directly requested that they provide us with extracts of the test results.  We received the documents via the Department of Education, this document was not on ACER letterhead nor was it signed certified . These 'so called"  certified true and accurate copies of my sons test results had too many answers for the amount of multiple choice questions in relation to OC as well as other issues.  When we queried the issue with the answers the SSU said that my son's second initial inadvertently slipped on to the next line and formed part of the answers and the SSU immediately sent us a revised copy!  When we advised the SSU that my son didn't have a second name and therefore he could not have a second initial they said that he wrote his surname as his second initial and that they manually checked and verified it.  My son said no way!  Problem with that excuse was that the answer sheets were said to have been destroyed so there is no way that they could have manually verified it.  C was the first correct answer to the test. 

AT the hearing of the ADT it was established that these documents that were presented to us by the SSU as having been transcribed by Mr. Lindsay from ACER and that were just being passed on by them were actually printed from the Department of Education's computer not ACER's.

8.  From these factors Mrs. Challita has built an unreasonable suspicion which no amount of explanation or internal or external investigation can allay.

There has never been a reasonable explanation or any investigation into this matter not by the Department and not by any external agency despite the fact that the Selective Schools Unit (SSU) made agreements at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to provide explanations and despite the fact that the Minister for Education, Mr.Refshauge ordered an investigation.    It is also a fact that because they are misrepresenting the matter and presenting everything as one issue, fresh further formal allegations in relation to biased processing, victimisation and manipulation of my children's applications in 2003, 2004 and 2005 and 2006 and allegations of bias in the marking of the writing component of my daughters Ella tests that had an alarming amount of documentation to support were not-accepeted and/or filed away on the basis that they refer to the same issues as before!

What the Selective Schools Unit is doing is they are presenting me as though I am making lots of seperate FOI applications for the exact same documents  that they have already produced and they treat  all our seperate matters as though it is only one FOI issue.    What they dont mention  is that our FOI requests are for the same documents in relation to different test, involving different children, for different years.  So they present me as being vexatious and asking for the exact same information over and over again when it is a lie, the information we request is in relation to different times and different children and different tests.   

I have the documents that clearly show that despite the Minister Mr. Refshauge ordering an investigation that it has never happened.  I also have documents that show that the Department has not honoured their agreements and are covering up this matter whilst continuing to neglect and target my children and this has been ongoing for 6 years despite the fact that so many people know.

The allegations have been allowed to be handled and dealt with by those that we allege are responsible despite numerous formal requests that my family be afforded procedural fairness and applications and/or complaints be handled by impartial and unbiased persons. 

They think I am being unreasonable?  I think not!   I know that they are breaching policy and procedure and their code of conduct as they have not investigated the matter they have covered up allegations and they continue to victimise my children.   My family have been denied procedural fairness and natural justice.

These are children and they deserve to be treated fairly and without bias and discrimination.  The matter warrants a proper and fair investigation. 

Evidence that supports our allegations is set out in the section History of Complaints and in particular in this section dated 24 February 2006 http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/2006/02/overview_of_iss.html

MORE INFORMATION UNDER FOI

Well today I received the documents under FOI in relation to my daughters Amanda's Selective High School application for 2007.

It is very interesting because firstly there are a few submissions in there that have been presenting lies.  In one they said that my daughters IQ test was the SBLM and that the LM was an outdated test and was not accepted but the test was the SB4 and that test is accepted.   They also said that my daughter didn't achieve school test results that were beyond stage outcomes and that is also a lie.

I have decided to put in the paragraph that forms part of the submission and this was in response to my request that given the issues relating to my family and the formal allegations of bias and manipulation that have not been investigated as per policy and procedure require that Amanda be exempt from sitting the test (as it was causing her anxiety and distress) and that she be assessed on the basis of her identified needs:

"Two IQ test results have been submitted along with the application form.  One is out of date and has been conducted by GERRIC.  This organisation uses an IQ test, the SBLM, which is outdated and places undue emphasis on verbal IQ.  Her assessed IQ is 147.  Neither selection commitees nor appeal panels accepted the validity of these tests for the purpose of predicting success in a selective high school.  The other, unspecified test was conducted in 2004 by the school counsellor at Miranda Public School in 2004 and assesss her IQ as being in the 139-150 range".

While it is anticipated that Mrs. Challita's proposal will not be accepted to the selection Commitees or appeals panel, these bodies will not convene until after the Selective High School tests has been conducted.  It is, therefore, considered advisable for the General Manger to deny Mrs. Challita's request and advise her that her application will not be processed under those conditions.  A draft response is attached for the General Manager's approval and signature."

It also stated in the documents that the idea that the Selective Schools Unit has that the IQ tests have to be less than two years old is a myth.  That it is the counselors who determine whether the reports are too old, the myth was developed apparently on a misunderstanding that the student shouldn’t be tested within two years. Problem is that my daughters test was discounted by the Selective Schools unit on the basis of a myth and lies.   Oh some of the stuff in there is amazing.

No matter how many times I have asked to be afforded procedural fairness and natural justice and that those that I allege are responsible not be permitted to handle or have anything to do with the matter,  they are drafting the documents and then organising somebody else to sign it.

In July I wrote to the Ombudsman, in August there is a note saying that they have spoken to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman has agreed not to investigate the matter.

For exercising my right to request information in relation to the process used to assess my children and for exercising my right to lodge formal complaints in relation to obvious errors and inconsistencies I have been deemed vexatious.

They aint seen nothing yet,  there is an election coming and if they don’t do the right thing I will do everything in my power to ensure that the matter is exposed and that the labor party is shown to be the dirty cowards that they are.

Unsuccessful again

Further to previous posts in relation to my family and in particular in relation to my daughter Amanda who sat for Selective High School placement for next year 2007 and missed out again, despite being identified gifted by the Department of Education themselves and the University of NSW and despite the comprehensive system being unable to properly meet her identified needs we just received the results from the SSU in relation to her Appeal for placement for next year 2007 and it went like this.

"The panel carefully considered all the information tha accompanied the appeal.  I regret to inform you that your appeal was not successful. 

The results included the panel notes of the meeting and they went like this:

4 August 2006 - The panel began discussions at 10.15 am.

A copy of the appeal document and attachments was provided to each panel member and to the independent observer.  The panel members were each provided with a copy of the Appeals summary and Recommendations, and provided time to review the contents independently.  In accordance with the Guidelines for Appeals Panels, panel members were advised by the Chair Person that the summary was for their convenience and that the recommendation should not be considered binding in any way.  The Appeal Panel took considerable time to review the appeal document and attachments.

The panel noted the history of disputation with the Department described in the appeal document and attachments.  The panel’s opinion was that it was not the panel’s role to decide on the veracity of the family’s claims but to recognize these claims as part of the context in which the appeal was lodged.  It was noted that the matter of the family’s dealing with the Department had already been referred to the Ombudsman’s Office and made known in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal hearing in 2005.

The original application, IQ test results, latest school report and awards included with the original document were inspected.

The authenticity of the most recent IQ report was confirmed with the Principal of Miranda Public School who inspected the file copy of the counsellor’s report at the panel’s request.  It was also established that the Department recognized the report IQ from this assessment to be current.   The agreement between the School Counsellor’s IQ assessment and that of the earlier GERRIC (UNSW) IQ assessment was noted.

It was noted that initial panels that considered Amanda’s application were for Caringbah High School and St George High School held on 26 May and 5 June 2006, respectively.  No illness misadventure claim was lodged though the application had made comment about Amanda’s emotional state in the Disabilities section of the original application.  This statement was brought to the attention and considered by the two Selection Committees.  The decision of the committee in each case was that there was no cause to set aside the profile score of 168.64.  On the basis of this score, no offer was made to Amanda for selective School placement.

After further consideration of the attachments, the panel decided to seek advice from Legal Services Directorate on the correspondence concerning Amanda’s participation in the Selective High School test.

The panel also decided to seek advice on the circumstances of Amanda’s involvement in Distance Education in 2005.   The panel though it important to have as full a picture of Amanda’s recent education as possible.

The panel adjourned at 1.10 p.m, with agreement to reconvene at 8.00 am on 18 August 2006.

18 August 2006.  It was reported that Legal Services Directorate advised that the response from the General Manager, Learning and Development to the parents request for Amanda to be exempt from sitting the selective school test was correct advice.

The panel inspected the application for Amanda to enroll in Distance Education in 2005.  The panel noted that Amanda is now enrolled at Woolooware Public School and further noted that the Student Services Officer, Miranda Regional Office had advised that Amanda was integrating well into the school.  This was supported in the appeal document by the Relieving Principal.  Woolooware Public school.  The comment on the Appeal Form by the  Relieving Principal, Woolooware Public school concerning Amanda was that “Her attendance record had been good and she had interacted well with her peers:.

The panel decision was that it was not able to comment on the impartiality of the decision made by the OC Selection Committee for placement in OC class in 2004.  It was understood that the Selection Committee proceeded in the normal way.

The appeal Panel did not accept that claim that not having attended an OC class would disadvantage Amanda in the ability-based assessment for Selective School placement. Members of the panel were aware of numerous cases where students in OC classes were not successful in gaining selective school placement.  Similarly, many non-OC students were successful in gaining selective school placement.

There is no evidence to support the allegation that the results of the selective schools test had been manipulated or altered in any way.  The panel accepted the integrity of this data and the placement process.

An independent observer was present at the Selection Committee meetings that considered Amanda’s placement for Caringbah High School and St George High School and certified that these committees conducted their business in accordance with established procedures and without bias.   The Appeal Panel considered that in both cases the selection panel members were independent and impartial in their consideration of Amanda’s application.

As indicated on the Appeal cover sheet, the Appeal panel decided that Amanda’s selective high School test results were accepted as the basis on which the placement outcome should be made.   This decision was recorded and signed by five members of the Appeal panel.

The effect of the appeal panel decision is that Amanda’s profile score of 168.64 was appropriate for use by the Selection Committees for Caringbah High School and St George Girls High School and that the Selection Committee decision was supported in each case."

Of course the comment by the relieving school principal included the following after it stated that she interacted well with her peers "During this time Amanda has acheived most stage 3 outcomes".  Of course the document that had the signatures that said verified the results were on a piece of paper that didn't even have my daughters name on it, it could have been about anybody and of course the allegations my family have made have never been investigated, the Ombudsman is still looking at the matter and we are still waiting to hear from the ADT.

They keep doing this to my children. 

STILL WAITING

We still haven't received the results of the appeal that we lodged on behalf of our daughter for Selective School placement for 2007.

The appeal was lodged at the end of July 2006.  I recently sent an email to the Selective Schools Unit asking what was happening with the matter as it is awful for a student when they don’t know and it is nearing the end of the year and I was advised the following:

The appeals panels have met and the outcomes are currently being processed. You will receive advice regarding the outcome of the appeal before the end of the month."

They try to make it sound as though my daughters matter is just going before the normal appeals panel with everybody else, but I know that it is not true.  They have done this before.  They have advised me of outcomes of matters that they said occurred during Selection Committee deliberations when in fact the documents show that the matter was left on hold and no decision was made and the application was later dealt with by a special team.

The email was sent by one person who has been factored into previous emails in relation to my allegations and in relation to which we had requested that they not be permitted to have anything to do with my daughter’s application or appeal as there have been serious allegations made against these people in the Department that have never been investigated.

They don’t care, they just want to make sure that they can continue to do what they do regardless of who they hurt and the damage that is done.  It is just so wrong and unfair.

So my daughter will find out pretty much in November whether she will be offered a place for next year.

NOTICE

For those of you who believe this is damaging my children and needs to be addressed I ask that you please write to the Minister for Education and question the handling of the matter. 

If you are truly concerned please ask our Education Minister to look into this matter and to make the time to see my husband and I,  to date all Education Ministers have refused to see us, apparently they are always busy for the foreseable future.

All my family asks is for them to acknowledge the allegations and  address these issues properly and fairly  and resolve the complaint as it is not good for the children, it causes them worry, humiliation and distress.   

There are people in positions of power who are abusing their power and it needs to be addressed.  For the children's sake.

PROTECTION AND JUSTICE - A CHILD'S RIGHT

It seems that there are some people, who's post I now refuse to post,  who seem to think that the Department of Education can purposely neglect my children's identified needs for years on end, target them so as to discredit and deny them the education that they desperately need, humiliate them publicly, bully them, intimidate them, harass them and treat them grossly unfairly across a period of 6 years and  continuing and that is alright because there are children much worse off than mine.

They believe that If my children complain to me, get depressed and sick and expect me to do something about it I should be embarrassed to say anything to anybody and my family should just sit in a cocoon and keep it to ourselves.   They believe that If we complain to the department and they ignore us and try to cover the matter up to protect themselves, whilst continuing to target my children,  it is our fault that our children are victims because I should just shut up and not tell anybody about it and tell my children to cop it sweet or just home school the children or leave the country.

The Department of Education appears in the eyes of some to have to accept no responsibility whatsoever for their actions.  Some believe that it is all my fault regardless of the fact that this was done to my children and family and is being done to my children and family by those in the Department of Education and we are just trying to defend ourselves and get protection.

Some people seem to think that if I tell people what is happening to my children then I am the one abusing my children.  It seems that they think that it should all be a secret as that way it wont exist!

I would say what is the bet that these people are somehow connected to the Department of Education!

I say, not on this lifetime.  What is happening to my children is real, it is being done to them on purpose and we will stop talking about it when the Department of Education does the right thing and investigates this matter, removes the threat from my children and acknowledges their "identified needs".

It is as easy as that. If that means that some people think I am crazy then that is their choice.  Don't bother posting your opinions any more about what you think of me because I wont bother posting them.

If you want to discuss the Department of Educations role and responsibilities in the matter I will be happy to oblige but I have a duty of care to protect my children and no child should ever have to hide the abuse that they are being served so as to protect the adults.

REMOVAL OF POSTS

Yesterday, after receiving a letter from the Department of Education in which it stated that arrangements have been made for a probity auditor to oversight the selection panels conducted by the Selective High School and Opportunity Class placement unit in relation to applications concerning my children and any appeals in relation to those applications so as to ensure a fair and transparent process, I decided to remove the posts in the History of Complaints section that refer to the allegations  where I have posted copies of the actual documents etc.   I have done this in order to give the system an opportunity to deal with the complaints and issues at their end in the hope that the matter can be properly and fairly dealt with and the complaints resolved

The reason for my decision is that, following the new evidence received under FOI a few months ago, I have forwarded the matter to ICAC, the Ombudsman and The Police Commissioner and asked for them to intervene and both the ICAC and the Ombudsman are at present assessing the matter again.   

I received a response from the police local branch, althouth I directed it to the Police Commissioner, Sydney, in their letter the Commander said that although he/she appreciates our concerns that there was nothing in the papers that I sent that indicates any basis for a criminal invesigation so they are unable to assist.   I  am writing back telling them that I didn't send the evidence with my letter as I just sent an overview of how the matter had been handled and addressed so that they could see and if they can advise me of exactly what they need to start a criminal investigation I would be happy to provide the information/documents that I have that indicates criminal activity.  We will see what they say.   

I also wrote to the Department of Education who indicated that since I had referred the matter to various external agencies and seek a proper and fair investigation by an independent person that they would not investigate the matter.  They have actually never investigated the matter! 

My concern is that the investigatory bodies can use lack of funding and resources for not investigating matters as well as other excuses (they have done that before)  but I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point and this time around as I do feel that there is a change happening.   

There are also outstanding issues in relation to Orders and Agreements made at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal that will be dealt with when the matter is listed for planning meeting on 12 September 2006.  I must say that the ADT has been very helpful and appears to be the one that is best doing their job. 

Because the matter is at the moment being assessed, which appears to be the closest thing a person can ever get to an investigation, I have decided to take the posts off until such time as we find out what process the system will use to deal with this matter.

Given all the media attention that is being given to how matters are being investigated by the investigatory bodies etc, I think it will be very interesting to see how a matter of this nature is dealt with and I will be sure to let everybody know.

MOBBING OF HIGH ACHIEVERS & ORS

Mobbing, (a type of human abuse) is a specific form of behavior usually identified in the workplace, but not limited to the workplace, and often in academia, characterized by systematic psychological abuse or humiliation of a person performed by an individual or a group with a view of damaging his/her reputation, honor, human dignity and integrity.

Mobbing has been identified in the workplace but it also occurs in different situations with the intent being a similar outcome. Mobbing in Australia has only really been investigated and researched in the workplace situation but it does go further than that.

Visit "Workplace Mobbing Australia" to read who the targets of organised bullying and/or stalking and threat might be

A quote from the "Workplace Mobbing Australia" site says

"Workplace mobbing is a 'virus' or a 'cancer' that spreads through malicious hearsay, rumour, and gossip. It is done with deliberate intent to have those targeted 'eliminated' or 'forced out' of their employment. Accusations of unsubstantiated 'bullying' can even be made against the target as the perpetrators realise the benefits of claiming 'victim' status. Those targeted are falsely accused and are denied the right of reply or natural justice.

The pattern as identified by European research and now confirmed in Australia indicates that those at high risk of being ganged up against are:

· High achievers
· Enthusiastic (those who volunteer or take on extra work)
· Those with high integrity (won't condone theft, bullying, etc)
· Those with high ethical standards
· Promoters of human rights, dignity and respect
· Possible whistleblowers
· Those who don't join in with the destructiveness of the in group
· Those with family responsibilities (particularly women)
· Those with religious or cultural requirements "

AS INDIVIDUALS WE ARE NOT PROTECTED

One of the things that has become obvious to me whilst dealing with my families complaints of systemic victimisation, manipulation and abuse is that the system has worked it out so that if they make it personal and about you then they are "not allowed" to investigate or get involved in individual complaints.

I was advised by the the following:

The first Shadow Minister for Education Mr. Barry O'Farell said he would look into it but never responded to communications or made contact with us again.

The second Shadow Minister for Education Jillian Skinner said in a letter dated 13 July 2004  "as opposition spokesperson I have no power to investigate individual complaints:

The now Shadow Minister for Education Brad Hazzard said in a letter dated 16 December 2005 "as Shadow Minister I do not have the resources or power to investigate your claims further"

Standing Committee on Education and Vocation Guidance "The Committee considered your letter at its meeting last week and notes your concerns.  However, the committee is not in a position to assess individual cases".

So as an individual we have no avenues to get issues addressed and we are not protected from being treated unfairly and unjustly or from being targeted and victimised.

When I complained to the Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission about the fact that the Ombudsman had refused to provide me with the explanations sought in my review request in response to what the Department had said and had just closed the matter and I alleged that there was a cover up happening.  I was told by letter that the Office Of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission was prohibited under the Ombudsman Act 1974 31B (2) to investigate allegations of "particular conduct".   Particular conduct was not defined in the act but when I rang them they said it was the type of allegations that I was making such as misconduct, victimisation and  a conspiracy to cover up.

Those in power have set it up so that they are not accountable and so that they can cover up allegations against them and so that they don't have to help individual people.    We are not a group, we are individuals and if as individuals we are not protected or have rights then we are not regarded as worthy and we are not valued.

That is why there is no respect.

Katie’s first years continued from post below:

My reason for explaining the first years is to give people an understanding of what happened, when I complained, and why.   It seems that there are those that have this idea that I was jumping up and down and complaining from the moment my children started school and that is why the teachers/schools retaliated and targeted my children and that therefore we deserved it.  However, the truth is that I didn’t complain for many years and instead I taught my children strategies on how to cope and make things better for themselves.

There were other parents making complaints about the schools attitude towards gifted children but we couldn’t afford to change our kid’s school and go private so therefore we laid low. Two families left to go to private schools. I didn’t actually make a complaint to the class teacher or formally to the school about the neglect of my children’s education until my eldest daughter was in Year 3. I did speak to the teachers about my children’s advanced abilities a few times but it was never in the form of a complaint it was just to let them know in the hope that they would take it into consideration.  We were too scared to complain as we feared that it would adversely affect the children.

In year 3 (2000) the school put together a 3/5 composite. I had automatically assumed that they would put Katie in it as it would be a better environment for her to be in as she could be exposed to the Year 5 work.  However, the school put her in the straight Year 3 class again with no provisions for her obvious needs and Katie became very unhappy and started becoming sick. My daughter was very unhappy and even scared and she would tell me that the teacher appeared to have an attitude against those that were smart.

My daughter would come home often upset and saying that the teacher was always putting her down and criticizing her writing publically in class and publicly picking on what she said - she was belittling her and my daughter often didn’t want to go to school and became very scared and worried of her teacher and life was very difficult.

When my daughter got her half yearly report card she saw that the teacher gave her a low mark for writing and had made negative comments about her writing and other things. It really upset my daughter.  She was very hurt as she felt it was unjust and unfair.  My daughter had developed the attitude that the school might be able to pretend they don't notice and deny her advanced abilities in other subject areas by the type of questions that they ask and the manner that they ask them but they would not be able to ignore her writing. 

I was upset for my daughter because the comments on her report proved to me that what my daughter was saying was true in relation to the attitude that the teacher had towards my daughter.  My children had been neglected enough and I was upset, so I sent a letter of complaint to the school about the neglect of the educational needs of identified gifted children.

I then went in for half yearly interviews to see the teacher, this was the first time I had seen or spoken to the teacher (I had kept away knowing what would happen if I spoke up).  At the interview I asked her about my daughter’s mark in writing as Katie wanted to know why she had been marked down given that she was a highly gifted writer and had always achieved the highest mark, the teacher told me.

1. Teachers only give students a 1 to make them look like they are good teachers.
2. If you give a child a 1 then they think that they don’t have to work hard.

The teacher then started pulling out all these books that she had behind her and showing me things that Katie didn’t know and started telling me about all these answers that Katie had answered wrong in class.  She had a list prepared.  Then she started shoving other kid’s report cards under my nose to ‘prove’ that she doesn’t give many ones.  She left me shaking my head.   I was already aware of what the teacher had been doing because Katie had told me the teacher had asked her more questions in the last few days than she had asked all the other kids all year and that after the second question Katie knew what the teacher was trying to do and that was try to prove that she wasn't that smart.  Katie was very upset and couldn't answer the questions, she just wanted to run and cry.  I left very concerned and upset.

Following that meeting my daughter started coming home very unhappy and saying that the teacher was making a lot of sarcastic comments about her intellect in class and that the teacher was being very mean to her.   Then on this particular day the teacher took my daughter outside the classroom and very aggressively told her “I hope you know that I am getting into trouble because you are bored at school”.   It devastated my daughter, she came home distraught.  My daughter didn't want to attend school, she became sick.  In my opinion the teacher had crossed the line so I wrote a complaint about the teacher’s actions and gave it to my daughter to give to the school if she felt strong enough about it and wanted the matter addressed and I explained to my daughter the implications of handing in the letter. My daughter delivered the letter but nothing was done by the school or about the teacher.

These complaints that I formally made in the Year 2000 are what triggered off the manipulating of my children marks and documents so as to deny them access to Opportunity Class and Selective Schools and they did this in order to ensure that my children were not publically identified as gifted or identified as gifted by the Department in order to discredit my children and family so that nobody would have to look at the complaints about the neglect of their eduation as gifted children (as the SSU made sure that they presented as not gifted) or give us the time of day.

My children have been neglected from the moment they started school and three of our children have been targeted, bullied and victimised systemically and continously since the Year 2000 to date and they have had enough.  Its time to have the matter properly and fairly addressed and the issues resolved.

Here is a typed copy from my daughters school writing book from that Year 3 class.   This was her level of writing at age 8.   I will just copy it below for you all to read.

A STORY THAT WILL GIVE YOU A TOOTHACHE
BY Katie Challita Year 3 age 8

Hi, I'm a tooth.  I'm the front tooth.  I'm very wobbly.  I live in
Renee's mouth.  I am wondering about something that Renee's mum said.....

It was one morning when Renee was brushing her teeth.  Guess What?
There was a cavity in the tooth next to me.  Renee ran to her mum.   She opened her mouth wide.  All the light came into her mouth, so I put my
sunglasses on!  Renee's mum said that she needs to go to the dentist "AHHH!"
cried all the teeth. I was very scared. Even worse I had found out that I had a
cavity on ME!  The dentist appointment was in 2 days. "Life is difficult
being a tooth", I thought.

It was time to go to the Dentist.  She went into the Dentist's room.
"Sit down, sweet heart", he said.  She opened her mouth wide.  I closed my
eyes. Something was knocking me.   The dentist was WOBBLING me.  Suddenly I
fell............

I open my eyes and found myself in a dark place. Then some light came
in.  (I put my sunglasses on!) Then I was dropped into water.  I could see Renee going into bed. I stayed there in that cold glass for 3 hours!  Then I saw a pink thing fly through the air.  The Tooth Fairy!  She picked me up and put me in her bag.  I
could not see anything but I guessed she was putting money in the cup.  She
flew off with me.....

The Tooth Fairy landed, well I don't know where.  But then the tooth
fairy took all the teeth out of the bag, and then I realised that I was at
Fairyland!  (Truthfully, I was not really enjoying it because it
smelled like perfume, Yuck!)  She put all the teeth in a room.   It was piled
up.  And Guess what?  I found a girl tooth who is so nice!

We stayed in that room until one day it was our turn to be turned into
stars. I was up in the sky, next to my girlfriend, and we got
married......

I woke up and found myself in Rene’s mouth.  Oh no!  It was all a
dream!  And I didn’t even get to kiss my friend and get married!   We were
still at the dentist, well actually leaving it, and Renee started wobbling me.  I suddenly fell.

Katie's first years.

I just wanted to fill you in on a bit of the history of this matter in the early school years with regard to my daughter.

Katie's writing in the Pre-school year is here.  I went in to see the Principal of the school the year before she started Kindergarten and I showed her the re-count of Orientation day that Katie had produced so that she would be aware of her advanced abilities.

The school did not differentiate the curriculum to meet her obvious needs.  They taught my daughter the alphabet when she already knew how to read.  They taught her blending sounds when she had been assessed at high school level with 95% comprehension. However in term 3 in Kindergarten the teacher gave my daughter lined paper to write her stories on.  I want to bring your attention to Katie's writing in Kindergarten taken from the school portfolio, (Page 1 , page 2, page 3, and finally page 4 ).

The next year I went in to see her teacher at the begining of the Year 1, not to complain, just to bring to her attention Katie's love of writing and the fact that she was already so advanced.  The teacher just rolled her eyes at me and cut me short. 

When we received Katie's half yearly report card it came with a Portfolio and in it was this writing from June in Year 1     page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5, page 6, page 7, and page 8. (Typed version published copy: page 1 and page 2).

When my daughter showed me her writing she felt embarrassed and when I saw it I felt so upset for my daughter as I couldn't believe that they could have taken away her lined paper and made her write on blank paper, even still in June, when she had been writing so beautifully on lined paper the year before.  The years appear the wrong way around. I had specifically gone in to talk to the teacher about her writing and how much it meant to her.   It just seemed so wrong.

But what also upset my daughter is that the Year 1 teacher didn't take the time or the effort to comment or praise her writing work.  She had tried so hard to produce good pieces of writing as she wanted so much to please her teacher and the teacher didn't even respond. 

It hurt my daughter and it wasn't the first time that something like this had happened to her. 

It didn't get better.   

JUDGMENT/HISTORY/DOCUMENTS

Details in relation to the history of the matter can be found on this blog in History of Complaints section, bottom up and also on Your Democracy  http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/858

Details and copy of the documents are in the Section  History of Complaints on the right and in details in particular are set out in "Overview of Issues and complaints" here http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/2006/02/overview_of_iss.html

Details in relation to the Judment handed down today by the ADT are here http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adtjudgments/2006nswadt.nsf/15f9fbc7c71d7590ca2571030000f0fe/324e177b8fb85d26ca25714d002ad428?OpenDocument

Judgment from ADT

Well judgment has been handed down http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adtjudgments/2006nswadt.nsf/15f9fbc7c71d7590ca2571030000f0fe/324e177b8fb85d26ca25714d002ad428?OpenDocument I am disappointed in one respect as it seems that the more incompetent the system is and the more involved a matter becomes the more likely they are of being protected from exposing their actions and documents under “unreasonable diversion of resources” and the belief people have that 'they wouldnt' do that!'.

Determinations in relation to placement in Selective Schools are being made behind closed doors without minutes being taken and they are relying on what they are putting on to a computer system for verification. A system that can be manipulated and that they say is incapable of dealing with all the information and is blamed when things are destroyed or disappear. Conveniently there is no paper trail.

Anyway at this point I am going to look at the positive. The document that I have been given access to regarding the IQ equivalents scores is enough for me to be able to prove what I am saying is the truth, so in a way it is a waste of resources and funding for the system to have to get all that information in relation to all the other instances of bias and misconduct if they provide what they have been ordered to provide. So in that respect whilst I am not happy, I appreciate that it is probably in everybody’s best interest if we just focus on one of the incidents in each of my children’s cases as otherwise it just complicates matters more and does waste resources that could be better spent on the Public system.

Problem is that back last year there was Judgement in relation to another issue in this matter and the Department still hasn’t provided us with what they were supposed to provide us with. So I guess I will have to wonder whether these sorts of applications should have a time limit on them for production?

ADT DECISION AVAILABLE TOMORROW

Today I received an email from my Solicitor advising that the decision from the Adminstrative Decisions Tribunal in relation to the production of documents that the Department refuses to produce will be available after 10.00 am tomorrow Thursday 13 April 2006.

We will see how things go?

UPDATE

I haven't posted for a while!  At the moment I am in waiting for things to happen and I am busy with other things.  Winter sports are a big thing in this house.  We still haven't had Judgment handed down by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal regarding the documents that we requested under the FOI Act that the Department is doing everything in their power not to produce.   WE have been trying to get these documents since the year 2002.  The hearing was last year.   Judgment was supposed to be handed down in January.   I don't know whether the delay is because the Magistrate is too busy or whether it is just in the too hard basket.  Thing is that without these documents  we cant get to the resolution of the matter and that's exactly what the Department wants -   it just so frustrating and draining.  They ignore and delay and I bet that by the time we get the documents they will say that too many years have gone past and that it is an old matter and again refuse to investigate it.  They have so many tactics.

It is also a fact that an FOI Application that I lodged early this year requesting copies of certain correspondence that the Department of Education  said was sent to me dealing with the matter is being totally ignored.  For years I have been asking for copies of these letters as I never got them yet they are saying that they sent them and that these letters addressed the issues. So I requested them clearly in an FOI Application.   I have provided them with their reference numbers as set out in their own letters referring to this correspondence.  They are ignoring me.   I have very recently written to the ADT in relation to the matter and I got a call yesterday and the gentleman there said he would contact the Department of Education today and see what is going on.  I am hopeful that the ADT can do something to force the Department to either provide the documents or to tell me whether they are going to withhold them so that I can take the matter to the ADT for determination.   They cant be allowed to just ignore people that have legitimate requests.

Next major issue is that my youngest daughter does not know what high school she is going to next year and it is getting to  her and I am worried as our past history in getting access to schools that are out of area is terrible.  Even with requests for special consideration on the grounds of extenuating circumstances, like  when two of my kids were in the same year as one accelerated and they couldn't be in the same high school we applied for placement in out of area schools and asked for special consideration given the extenuating circumstances and we were rejected.  Even requests for special consideration on compassionate grounds when my daughter was on Distance Education on psychological and medical grounds and wanted to spend year 6 in school with friends and wouldn't return to our local zoned school and she had her reasons.  It was her last year in Primary and she wanted to spend it in school with her friends and she asked for a place in the  school that she had previously been to before we moved away from the suburb then moved back into the area and she was rejected.  Pleas to reconsider on compassionate grounds were ignored.

My daughter does not want to attend her zoned local high school which is a "specialist sports high school'.  If she is forced to attend there she will be very disappointed, distressed and upset and this is not a good way to start high school.  She is also an accelerated student and she is starting high school at age 10.  She should be supported and helped, its not right the way the system operates.  You cant just leave kids in limbo!

Even the Catholic school that her brother is in is a problem for us to get into as my daughter is not in a feeder school or Catholic school.  It is such a good school and they get so many applications. My daughter is applying but we cannot be guaranteed a place just because her brother is there, there have been many cases of siblings missing out on placement. 

It shouldn't be like this!. 

Selective Schools procedure

Today I received a copy of a letter sent by the Department of Education, Learning and Development Branch, to my solicitor that went as follows:

I refer to your fax dated 20 February 2006 concerning Amanda Challita's application for Year 7 selective high school entry in 2007.

I have instructed the Selective HIgh School and Opportunity Class Placement Unit to process Mrs Challita's application form.   This has been done and the student's identification number is shown above.

All information provided by Mrs Challita, including the students Year 4 report, will be made available to the selection committee.  The selection committee has the discretion to determine whether or not additional information is required.

Any medical evidence provided by Mrs Challita will be presented to the selection committee.  In this matter as well, the selection committee has the discretion to determine whether or not additional information is required.

Selection committees have the discretion to consider additional evidence of academic merit including IQ results.   If they decide to consider the IQ scores, they also have the discretion to look at either or both IQ reports.

Gillian Shadwick, General Manager, Learning and Development

So at least they have acknowledged one thing and that is that the Selection Committees should be provided with all the information that the parent provides and its up to the Selection Committee whether they accept it or not.  Its not the role of the Selective Schools Unit to decide whether IQ reports are valid and whether they should be presented and whether school reports and IQ tests are "out of date" and therefore invalid.

Anyway, Amanda sat the Selective Schools test on Thursday.  She said after-wards that she was glad that it was over. 

We will see what happens.

Update on complaint

Today I received an email from the Premier, Mr Morris Iemma's office stating the following:

The Premier has received your recent email concerning selective schools in New South Wales.

As the matter you have raised primarily concerns the administration of the Minister for Education and Training, the Hon CM Tebbutt, MP, the Premier has arranged to bring your approach to the Minister's attention.

You may be sure that your comments will receive close consideration.

Yours sincerely
Jocelyn Mouawad
Assistant Private Secretary

Now I wish I could say that this response gives me confidence that my comments will receive close consideration but I have had responses like this before from the previous Premier Mr. Bob Carr who then wrote to me and just repeated the same tale that everybody is repeating and that is that they have been advised (by those I allege are responsible) that the issues have been addressed and the matter has been deemed closed.   Of course when I requested documents under the FOI Act in relation to the administration process used by the Premier's office in relation to the complaint I was advised that no documents existed.  It is also a fact that letters to me that deal with the issue of my complaint did not bear a reference number for identification.

Of course this initial email from Mr. Iemma's office does have a reference number to start with and I want to believe that Mr. Iemma is different, of course he may not have even heard about my email or our allegations as the matter could very well be being handled by the bureaucrats looking after the administration.

Anyway, I always like to think positive.  Oh and no news yet from the Administrative Decisions Tribunal regarding a date for the handing down of Judgment.  They did however say that they expect it to be soon........

REPLY TO LETTER FROM CROWN SOLICITOR

I have been thinking about the letter from the Crown Solictors office posted below.  I wasn't surprised when Alice F was the first person to respond.  My solicitor does not know about this Blog and I dont plan on telling her as I cant afford any more of her services.  We are on our own for this one.   So I am going to have to take charge of this complaint.  I am going to fight for my families right to be treated fairly and to be heard and see how things pan out.

I have written a response to the Crown Solicitors Office and it goes like this:

'I refer to your letter dated 17 February 2006 and would ask that you please advise me who your instructing officer is and exactly what is being said about whom that is being referred to as defamatory imputations and why?

My family has been making serious formal allegations for many years against the Department of Education in respect of serious breaches of Policy and Procedure that we allege are part of a conspiracy to cover up and  that have not been investigated as per policy and procedure require. The posting of the information on the internet has been made necessary due to the fact that the Department will not accept our complaints or afford our family Procedural fairness and Natural Justice and as a result children are not protected.

 

It is also a fact that the actions and/or lack of action by the  Department of Education in relation to this matter has worked to defame, discredit and ostrasize my children and family.

It is of my understanding that truth is a defense to defamation.  It is also my understanding that if you have a right to say something because it is in the Public interest then that is also a defense.

I believe 100% that what I am saying is true and have backed it up with documents to support what I am saying.  I also believe that I have a duty to provide this information to the public as it involves serious allegations against Public servants that involve systemic neglect , victimisation and psychological and emotional abuse of children within the care of the Department of Education. 

Until such time as the Department agrees to conduct a proper and fair investigation in relation to every one of my families allegations, as they come with an alarming amount of documentary evidence in support, I will continue to seek justice and protection for my children and I will continue to have to  let people know what is happening to children in the education system. 

I await hearing from you in relation to providing the details requested above regarding the Departments allegations of defamation so that I may review my posts and, if the allegation is warranted, remove the offending quotes and make a retraction".

So, we will see how things pan out!

Letter from Crown Solicitor

Today I received a letter from the Crown Solicitors Office as follows:

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Mrs Challita

DEFAMATORY MATERIAL CONCERNING DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING EMPLOYEES

My client instructing officer of the Department of Education and Training has become aware of the contents of an email dated 14 February 2006 which you sent to numerous people, including principals of New South Wales Selective High Schools.

In that email you make a number of allegations including bias, victmisation and corruption, against several employees of the Department, and refer the recipients to two websites where further material is provided.

It is my client's view that the emails and the contents posted by you on the website contains a number of defamatory imputations against those employees, and as such my client requires you to take the following action immediately.

1.   That you send an immediate full retraction to the persons who have received the emails referred to, retracting the allegations made.

2.  That you remove or cause to be removed all material posted by you which relates to Department of Education employees from the Websites -  http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/858 and http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/.

3.  That you undertake not to publish any further such defamatory material.

4.  That you provide written confirmation of the above immediately to my client.

Yours faithfully,  Christa Ludlow, Senior Solicitor for Crown Solicitor.

So there you have it.  They are telling me that I cant post the documents that I received under the FOI ACt and I cant comment on what is happening to my family and who I think is doing it even if the documents support what I am saying.   

Is that "Freedom of Speech"? 

I always thought that the truth was a Defence in matters of defamation.  I am posting documents to support my allegations.  I guess maybe I should write to them and say that if they undertake to hold an urgent inquiry and investigation into my serious and formal allegations as policy and procedure require instead of covering it up like they have for the past 6 years, then I will consider removing the material from my site.

Waiting for Judgment Day!

Its getting to the end of January and I am getting anxious.   At the end of last year we brought issues in relation to production of documents (or more precisely) lack of production of documents to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.   The matter was heard over 3 days, two days were half days and then a further representation was made by our Barrister attempting to file further written submissions taking into consideration the evidence. We were not successful.   

The Department of Education stated that it was an unreasonable diversion of resources to provide us with the information that we were seeking!   Imagine how much resources have been spent having to take this matter to Court!

Judgment was reserved until the end of January.   We still haven't heard anything so I don't know when Judgment will be handed down, I appreciate that it has been holidays and this isn't an easy matter.

I can see it being an issue.  If the ADT orders the Department of Education to provide the documents that they don't want to provide,   I know for a fact that the Documents will confirm what I am alleging is true and that my children are being neglected,  bullied, treated unfairly and their marks are being manipulated and tampered with in order to discredit them,  do harm and keep them out of Selective Schools and it is being done to them by adults in the Education Department.  I allege that the Department is desperately trying to protect their reputation so they are covering up and avoiding dealing with the issues at all costs.

Anyway my Solicitor will be presenting the matter to the Department one we get these documents and they are apparently going to assess it for investigation.  Personally I don't trust them, they have said that before and all they did was ask those responsible who said "Yes there were some errors and inconsistencies in the documents but it wouldn't have made any difference anyway and that I am just a crazy pushy mother who's children are not quite as gifted as I think they are!"  Then they closed the matter and anybody who made enquiries were told that the issues had been addressed and the matter had been deemed closed -  BY THOSE RESPONSIBLE.

I think presenting incorrectly calculated lower scores and a misrepresentation of the facts to the Selection Committees and Appeals Panel in order for them to base their decision is significant and unless they already had decided to keep my children out how can they say that it wouldn't have made a difference.  My children are identified gifted children who had seriously been suffering in the comprehensive system and I had been complaining to the Minister for years as it was causing my children psychological and phsyical problems.  They knew all this and still they went out of their way to misrepresent my children's matter and tamper with their scores so as to keep them out and so that they lost their appeals.

During the  time that my Solicitor will present the matter to the Department I will post copies of the Documents so that everybody can see what the system is doing, their excuses and how they deal with issues.  The documents are alarming and the evidence of tampering and manipulation of test scores is excessive.

Update on complaints

Well I have some sort of news.   As I have stated before, prior to Christmas break I received a letter from the Department of Education requesting that I provide information in relation to my allegations so that the matter can be assessed to see if an investigation was warranted.  This matter has been going on for over 5 years and previous complaints were “not accepted” on the grounds that the matter had been dealt with and closed. Now I don’t trust them because previously they have pretended that they have investigated the matter when really they have just looked at a report prepared by those that we allege are responsible that says that there is nothing to investigate and that I am just a crazy pushy mother and that the matter was closed.   Anyway, this time I have instructed my solicitor to handle the complaint because I have justifiable good reason not to trust the Department and I am going to take them to task. 

I advised the Department in my recent formal complaint that they please afford my family procedural fairness and investigate the matter properly and fairly and save me having to take legal action just to be treated fairly.   I have already had to take them to Court in relation to the FOI aspect of the matter so I guess they know that I am not joking.   They must really think I am a lunatic if they think that I am prepared to hire a Barrister and Solicitor for no good reason?

Anyway a few days ago I received an email from an organization that I had previously contacted in relation to the matter that said that “It would appear that the Department has taken your concerns seriously and is investigating your  complaint”.   Now this is good news and I am hoping that this organization has received some inside information and that 2006 will signify the end of our nightmare.   

Here’s hoping the Department of Education do the right thing.

Progress, maybe, hopefully

I recently received a letter from the Department of Education in relation to the recent complaint that was lodged with my daughter Amanda's application for Selective School Placement for 2007.  In that complaint I requested that my daughters application not be permitted to be handled by the Selective Schools Unit as I have made numerous formal allegations against them of bias and misconduct, including manipulation of test scores.   That request was denied on the basis that my allegations have not been substantiated (actually they havent even been investigated) and because they say that there is nobody else in the Department of Education who can identify a gifted child except the Selective Schools Unit.   Not even their Gifted and Talented Unit is apparently capable of identifying a gifted child without possibly making mistakes. 

That of course is hilarious especially given that the Selective Schools Unit has been incapable of identifying my children as gifted despite the fact that they have been identified highly gifted by the Department of Education's own psychologists and/or tests and that they have also been identified highly intellectually gifted by the Gifted research center of the University of New South Wales and all their school reports show consistent high ability.   Details and reports which have been in their possession.  Anyway since they will not remove my children from those that I allege are victimising and targeting them, I have requested through my solicitor that my daughter be exempt from sitting the Selective High School test and that her application be determined on the basis of her identified needs and extensive documentation that was provided with her application.   We will see what they respond with. I do not want to give them another opportunity to have access to my daughters marks and it is also the case that this whole matter has caused my children so much distress and despair that taking tests now cause them extreme anxiety and I don't think that given the circumstances it is fair to put a child through this type of testing.

I also received a letter from Mr. Ballantine of the Department of Education, he is the Assistant Director or Audit acknowledging my complaint and asking me to provide specific information that shows or tends to show corrupt conduct or maladministration.   This is progress -  I hope.  This is the first time I have actually been asked to present anything to them.  Usually they just rely on what has been presented by those that are alleged to be responsible.

We have requested, through our Solicitor, that because the issue of documents requested under FOI  is still outstanding and Judgment has been reserved at the ADT  until end of January whether the assessment of this complaint can be put on hold until we get all the information and documents so as to present the case in it's entirety.   It's only an assessment of the matter so as to make a decision whether to investigate it or not.   

I am awaiting to hear from the Department in relation to both above mentioned matters.  We will see what happens and I will keep you informed.

Process and procedures

Today I received a letter from Mr. Brad Hazzard MP who is the new Shadow Minister for School Education.   I had written to him advising him about my families matter and asking for his help to get our serious allegations investigated.  I advised him that the Minister for Education had been provided with a misrepresentation of the facts by those that I allege are responsible and that the matter had been deemed closed unfairly and prematurely and as a result my children have been victimised and continued to be neglected, targeted and treated unfairly.

His response went like this:

I write to you in reference to a letter you sent to my office in relation to your children Danny, Katie and Amanda Challita.

After reading your correspondence I wrote to the Minister for Education and Training, Carmel Tebbutt on your behalf.

I note the Minister has said that your concerns have been the subject of numerous Ministerial responses, Freedom of Information Requests and Ombudsman investigation and an Administrative Decisions Tribunal hearing.

The Minister also states that her Department now considers your case closed, and will not respond to further correspondence unless you have new information.

I regret that as Shadow Minister I do not have the resources or power to investigate your claims further:

Yours sincerely:

Brad Hazzard MP:

What does a person have to do to get treated fairly?   The Minister for Education has been presented with a misrepresentation of the facts by those that we allege are responsible and we can prove it but she refuses to see us and she refuses to look at the matter or to allow anybody to ask questions about the matter.  Nobody seems to have the authority, funding or power to do anything:

Just to address the issues:   Firstly whilst there has been numerous Ministerial responses they all say the same thing and nobody has addressed the issue of procedural fairness or of the conflict of interest/duties in that they have taken the word of those that we allege are responsible without question or challgenge.:

Secondly there have been a number of FOI Requests but that is because three of my children have been targeted numerous times and I have had cause to file fresh FOI applications for documents in relation to different issues.   At the moment there is a number of FOI Applications being put before the ADT as the Department refuses to give us documents that will show without a doubt what we already know and that is that the sums do not add up and there is evidence of bias, tampering and manipulation of test scores/documents and the Department has not honoured previous agreements made at the ADT.

Thirdly the Ombudsman did not investigate the matter!  He took the word of those responsbile and closed the matter.  When I complained and sent documentary evidence that showed the Department was not telling the truth and asked for a review of his decision I was told that since he believed that I was not going to accept any view that did not accord with my own that he saw no reason to give me the explanations sought in my review and that further correspondence from me will be filed without acknowlegement:

Then we go on to the 'so called" Administrative Decisions Hearing.  That was back on 2003.   The matter did not make it to hearing.  We came to aggreements on the morning of the hearing and as at today they Department of Education have not honoured their agreeements.  One of the FOI Applications presently before the Court was necessary because of their failure to honour their agreements.

So how can the matter have been dealt with and deemed closed back in the year 2003 as they say in their letter when the investigation that was supposedly ordered by Mr. Refshauge in August 2003 hasn't taken place, the correpondence in the matter has not addressed the issues, the FOI issues are still outstanding, the Ombudsman has not investigated the matter and the Department of Education havent honoured their agreements.  The Department said in a letter when I questioned these issues that the resolution of the matters at the ADT was supposed to represent the investigation however the agreements made at the ADT have not been honoured and are all still outstanding yet the matter has been deemed closed.:

It is a cover up.  The system is their attempt to protect their reputation is failing in its duty of care to the children.

The Culture in Education

I was just thinking, that for those people who don't know the story behind what happened to my children and family, and you are interested  you can go to http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/?q=node/858

I have set out some of what happened on there.

Final hearing day at ADT

Well today was the last day the matter was before the ADT.    Judgment was reserved until January.  Its was a difficult day because we were restricted on what could be asked as the matter was primarily in relation to the FOI Applications and asking for the documents that they refuse to give us which will show, what I already know, and that is that the scores have been calculated incorrectly and my children's papers have been manipulated and tampered with.

I am not going to say much more because there isn't much more to say.   The lady from the Selective Schools Unit was interesting because she seemed to think that they couldn't release documents that showed what Profile score represented the different  IQ levels because she said that the "rich" people, in particular those overseas, might find out what scores are needed and pay a Psychologist large sums of money in order for him to write a report with a high IQ that corresponds to a high profile score result just to get the child in to a Selective School.  In was unbelievable.  They think that they are incapable of doing wrong and as a result they wont accept or even investigate allegations against them but see those Psychologist and those rich people, well they cant be trusted so they have to ensure that they make it equitable so they look negatively at and cut down those with IQ tests attached to their application!!! 

Intellectual giftedness already has a cut off score -  one that has been decided by Psychologists trained in the field.   I know for a fact that the Selective Schools unit  doesn't  know how to identify gifted children, as my children are identified very highly gifted, by more than one IQ test and by the Department of Education themselves with measured IQ's of 161, 154 and 147 and those in the Selective Schools Unit  have done everything in their power to keep my children out.   Despite the fact that my children regularly functioned within the top of the state and were for the most part of it "Beyond stage outcomes for their year" and struggling to cope educationally, emotionally and psychologically in the comprehensive system.  They even lost their appeals.

I once said to a Principal back in the Year 2000 that I believed that what was happening was due to an attitude problem and that it came from the top.   I am all the more convinced of it now.

It amazes me because the Selective Schools Unit is supposed to be their to help identify gifted students yet if you identify your child as gifted by undergoing an IQ test independent of the Department  you are automatically seen in a negative light - you are discredited and so is the psychologist.

The sooner they get rid of these schools and people  the better..   

Hearing at ADT

Well yesterday our matter was before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal again.   It didn't finish.  Our Barrister didn't finish with his cross-examination of the witness.  The most crucial part is yet to come, that will happen Thursday.

The thing is that I have simplified the problem and the problem is that I want my families allegations investigated as they are serious and they warrant investigation. Those responsible at the Department of Education have closed the matter internally and I can’t get it out of their clutches or anybody to look at it.

The Ombudsman, well firstly he was told a misrepresentation of the facts by those responsible and he wouldn’t investigate it either, when I presented the matter again to him he even went to far as to tell me that it didn’t' matter what the Data files/documents said etc., and how many scores were presented etc, that because I only believed that the test marks had been calculated wrongly and that I couldn't prove it then they wouldn’t' investigate it.

Of course the Department of Education is refusing to give me the calculation of the scores using the excuse that it will take forever and it is therefore an unreasonable diversion of resources. Apparently they can refuse on those grounds.

So this is how it stands, here is the cover up in a nutshell. They wont investigate my allegations unless I can prove that they actually calculated the score wrongly, I know that they have calculated the scores incorrectly because I had two kids in the same year and I was able to compare and work out how the scores were calculated, however it is not enough that I know that they have been calculated wrongly as nobody has to look at it unless I can get the documents from the Selective Schools Unit to prove that the scores have been calculated wrongly. Of course they refuse to give them to me. How unfair is that?

That hardly seems fair or right, surely the job of the Ombudsman is to investigate a matter where there is evidence of a pattern of inconsistencies, wrong-doing and changing of scores and decisions that can only be described as “obviously wrong’. It shouldn't be the complainant’s job to investigate their own matter first as they don’t have access to the information. I wonder what the hell we are paying the Ombudsman for?

It’s just the same as with my allegations in relation to my daughters marking of her Ella writing component. They wouldn't investigate the marking for bias because they say that the markers didn't know my daughter therefore there was no motive, yet then they tell me that they don’t keep a list of the markers and that 3 years ago they decided to destroy the lists once they have been organized so they don’t know who actually marked her paper and there is no way that you can find out.

Its ridiculous.

Hearing at ADT

Well, I am starting to get a bit anxious.   The second day of the hearing in relation to  the FOI Applications in our matter  is happening on Tuesday 29 November,  next week.  The matter is also listed for hearing on  Thursday the 1st December, hopefully that will be the last day that the matter will be heard.   I despair every-time it goes on as the cost of taking a matter to Court is such that it is financially draining.  I have no doubt that the system is set up that way in order to discourage people from taking legal action and fighting for their rights.

I am a bit anxious because one of the persons that I am alleging is one of the key players in relation to the alleged bias,  victimisation and manipulation of test scores  is going to have to give evidence and have to answer in relation to the documents.   I have been waiting for this for 5/6 years.  I am not sure how I will feel, I don't actually know what this person looks like - we have never actually met personally.

I know that some people refuse to believe that the Education system could be involved in any type of conspiracy but at the end of the day they are humans and humans are capable of all sorts of things. 

Just to show you all that I am not the only one that is alleging a conspiracy in the Selective Schools Unit if you go to  http://www.nsbhs.org/progress.htm and you go to  under the heading 'The meeting is open to the floor' there is an entry that says "The Vice President of Hornsby Girls High School referred to a conspiracy within the DET that is crippling the Selective High Schools system".

Now this public meeting was held on 3 December 2002.  I do not know the Vice President of Hornsby Girls High and at that point I hadn't even received the documents under the FOI Act, I didnt' receive my documents until 24 December 2002.  This entry is totally independent to me.  I am not the only one that is making allegations.

I actually wrote to Jillian Skinner and to Barry O'Farrell.  It amazes me that although they were at a public meeting where a conspiracy was mentioned in front of a crowd of people, both Jillian Skinner and Barry O'Farrell did not want to help my children and  they ignored me.

Anyway I will keep you posted on what is happening.  At the moment Statements have been filed by those in the Selective Schools Unit and we have responded.    It feels so good to be able to present details of what has happened.  Up until now the only persons that got to see my complaints or allegations were those that we were complaining about, everything was forwarded to them, they even had control of providing the documents under the FOI>  How unfair is that?

History of complaint

For over 5 years my family has been making formal written allegations and complaints against the NSW Department of Education of systemic and continuous neglect, victimisation, vilification, bullying, misconduct, manipulation of test scores , corruption and a conspiracy to cover up. These complaints are “not accepted” and filed away. The Department has unfairly ruined my reputation and the reputation of my children so that nobody is required to listen to us or address the issues.

The issues flared up in the Year 2000 when a teacher started publicly humiliating my daughter and bullying her after I complained about her treatment and the inappropriateness of her education. I made formal written complaints about the matter and in desperation I took the issues in relation to the neglect of the Education of Gifted children to the P & C in the hope of organizing a committee of parents to oversee gifted education in the school. I also wanted to ensure that the school had a Policy on the Education of Gifted Children and that it was followed. I was not successful.

In the Year 2001 I wrote to the media about the neglect of gifted children. An article appeared in the Daily Telegraph. It didn’t help our situation as the person who wrote the article wrote that the “Principal of the school wasn’t very smart”. The Principal recognized herself and was not impressed. It discredited her intelligence and the school’s reputation so, in return, the system set out to discredit my children’s intelligence and ruin our reputation in order to preserve theirs.

I allege that those in the system have since the Year 2000 to date have, on an alarming amount of different occasions, targeted my children and deliberately, relentlessly and mercilessly neglected their identified educational and emotional/social needs and systemically manipulated my children’s test scores in order to discredit them and keep them out of schools for gifted children and in order to discredit me so that nobody will have to listen or care about what I have to tell them.

I appreciate that these are serious allegations and I take full responsibility for making them, but I have an alarming amount of documents and evidence that shows without a doubt that we are justified in making these allegations and we want to present the documents openly and have the matter properly and fairly investigated.

My four children have suffered serious psychological and emotional distress, neglect, depression and serious physical problems as a result - and it continues.

At the present time the FOI (Freedom of Information) request is being put before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal as what we have observed is that the Department of Education has withheld documents, tampered with documents and/or destroyed documents and we want all the proper documents to be in our possession as per the FOI request and as per their agreement the last time the matter was put before the ADT in 2003. An agreement that they didn’t honour. They are dragging their heels, destroying documents, saying that documents don’t exist, even when they are required to keep them, just so as to try to make it impossible for us to verify information and so they can just ruin my reputation and blame everything on computer error and use that as an excuse to justify not looking into the matter or investigating it.

I will keep you informed.