INVESTIGATION OF DET PROCESS AND PROCEDURES!

DOCUMENTS ARE BEING UPLOADED AS TIME PERMITS

In June 2000 I started making complaints and writing to the Department of Education in relation to the neglect of the Education of highly gifted children and how it was impacting on our children's development, health, emotional and psychological wellbeing. 

In November 2002 after having concerns in relation to the handling of our eldest sons Opportunity Class Application in 2000, our eldest daughters Opportunity Class application in 2001 and both their Selective High School Applications in 2002 I requested documents under FOI with regard to the processing of the Applications as I feared that the children were being targeted and treated unfairly as a result of our complaints.  These documents were delivered to us on Christmas Eve, 24 December 2002 at 4.30 p.m.

Initially I was devastated with what presented in the documents as my fears were realised and the documents showed alarming amounts of bias, inconsistancies, deletions, omissions, changing of scores, presentation of incorrect scores and information - just to name a few. 

I spoke to a Doctor friend of mine who arranged for me to attend her house with another independant person present to draft an URGENT letter to the Minister for Education Mr. Watkins that would not be confronting as they said I was too emotional and upset to write but that would give the Department an opportunity to call it a mistake and right their wrongs before the new start of the school year began.  A copy of that letter is attached (Page 1 and Page 2); and dated 6 January 2003.

I rang the DET to chase the matter towards the end of January 2003 and was advised that my letter, that I had sent by fax, had been received but that only half of the attachments were received and that they were waiting for the other half to arrive.  I advised them that nobody had notified me that the documents had not all arrived and that it was an urgent matter as clearly stated in the letter.   I was asked to send the documents again by fax.  This time I went to the Library to get confirmation.  Everytime we tried to fax the documents there were interuptions and the faxing was stopped.  In the end the DET wouldn't confirm with me whether they received all the pages.  This was the start of the process of delaying and covering up and presenting the picture that they wanted to present. 

I receieved a reply to my letter dated 24 February 2003 (Page 1, Page 2) after the school year had begun. I responded to the letter on 22 April 2003 to Mr. Refshauge as I had to wait as Ministers changed- (Page 1, Page 2). The Minister responded on 17 June 2003 - see here.  I responded on 24 June 2003.

I then received a letter from the Minister for Education Mr. Refshauge dated 4 August 2003 stating that an investigation would be commenced in relation to the handling of my families applications and complaints - see here. 

This investigation has never taken place.

During this time there were issues in relation to FOI matters and production of documents pertaining to my children as the Department of Education had withheld documents and had not produced documents.

As a result of the failure of the Deparment to give us access to certain documents and information we applied to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to get access to the Original test answer sheets so that we could verify the original answers and marks and to produce documents that were missing. 

On the day the matter was for planning meeting at the ADT on 18 July 2003 the original answer sheets were destroyed despite being specifially requested to be put aside and produced under FOI. 

On 18 August 2003 the matter was listed for hearing at the ADT.   At the time the matter was withdrawn by me on the understanding that - see here :

1. The Department will provide us with an opportunity to view the test papers and answers.

2  The Department would provide documents that were missing as advised by me.

3. A meeting would them be held to explain the discrepancies and the processess.

A viewing was held on 27 August 2004 at the Department of Education's premises.  At that veiwing my children and I were intimidated, bullied and harrassed by Departmental Staff until we left in tears and we could not do what we had gone their to do.   This was supposed to be a viewing for my children to see their tests in a secure and safe environment, nothing else was supposed to happen as children were present.

At that point because the original answer sheets had been destroyed we requested the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), the company who marks the tests,  to provide us with Certified true and accurate copies of our children's test results directly.   ACER referred the matter to the Department of Education and informed us that all communications had to go through the Department of Education. 

(At the hearing of the matter at the ADT in December 2005 it was established that ACER marks the Selective Schools test and sends the results to the Department by electronic transfer and that certain personell at the Department have access to alter or change the marks BEFORE they import them into their computer as well as any other time.  A number of people can do this pretty much from anywhere just by putting in their password.)

On 17 December 2003 the Department of Education sent us what they said were certified true and accurate copies test results from ACER. 

These documents had inconsistancies and errors. 

(Later at the hearing of the FOI matters at the ADT it was established that this certified document that was presented as being directly from ACER and forwarded by the Selective Schools Unit was in fact printed from the Department of Educations computer and system and not ACER's as presented.  Until this time we have been unable to get documents from ACER directly, independently or impartially)

On 17 January 2004 (Page 1, Page 2) we wrote to the Minister, The Ombudsman, ICAC and to the Premier at that time, Mr Bob Carr, enclosing copies of the 'so called' certified true and accurate copies that showed inconsistancies, errors, bias and misconduct and that advised of the bullying treatment by Departmental staff and the improper comments made by Departmental staff.  The letter requested that the matter be urgently subjected to a proper and fair investigation as per policy and procedure require so as to protect the children from further victimisation, bullying, vilification, neglect and psychological and emotional harm. 

I had also written to Mr. Brogden about the matter and he had responded but had not included the letters as indicated in his response. This letter was sent to me by fax on 11th March 2003 and is dated 19 December 2003 - see here (Page 1, Page 2).

The Minister, The Ombudsman, ICAC and the Premier did nothing and just chose to accept the word of the persons whom we alleged were responsbile who informed them that the matter was dealt with and closed.  The letter to Mr. Bob Carr was responded to by Roger B. Wilkins on behalf of Mr. Bob Car - here.

In the letter from Mr. Refshauge to Mr Brogden it states that the matter had been dealt with and deemed closed and that correspondence from me will be filed without acknowledgment. 

However:

1.  The agreements made at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal on 14 August 2003 have still not been properly honoured or at all;

2.  The Ombudsman did not investigate the matter.

3.  The investigation ordered by the Minister Mr. Refshauge on 4 August 2003 has still not been undertaken.

I was never directly advised by the Department that the matter had been deemed closed!  This was an internal decision.   I was waiting for outstanding matters to be addressed.

On 4 March 2004 I wrote again to Mr. Refshauge as I was still waiting to hear from the Department in response to my letter dated 17 January 2003 and also in relation to the investigation that Mr. Refshauge had put in place on 4 August 2003 - see attached.  I was also of course also waiting for the Department to honour their agreements made at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal on 14 August 2003. 

These matters are still outstanding to date.

On 4 March 2004 Magda Pollak (the main person that we allege is responsible) deemed me a vexatious correspondent - see Page 1, Page 2, Page 3.

I was never advised by the Department of Education that I had been deemed vexatious.  I was never informed directly that the matter was closed.  These were all internal decisions made by those that we alleged were responsible.

At the same time that all this was happening there were other issues happening in relation to my eldest sons education and treatment in the comprehensive high school and in relation to his Year 8 Applications for Selective Schools in 2003 for placement in 2004. These issues included a witch hunt by the school to ruin his reputation and brand him a bully. 

During this time in June 2004 we had also applied for our youngest daughter to sit for Opportunity Class for 2005.   We had lodged a responding to suggestion and complaint form asking that her application not be processed by the Selective SChools Unit and that she be exempt from sitting the OC external test as we had made allegations of bias and misconduct that had never been addressed and this issue was causing my children extreme anxiety and distress and that she be processed on the basis of her identified educational needs and previous public school test results.  The request was denied the Selective Schools Unit stating that if she didn't sit the test, they wouldn't process her application. The application was again processed by persons previously involved in this matter despite formal requests that they not do so.  Documents produced under FOI show the process was manipulated and FLAWED - again.

My family was full of anguish and despair as the persons about whom we had made the allegations had access to target my son and daughter again despite formal allegations being made against them and they were processing the applications and appeals once again the school system was targeting, victimsing, neglecting and trying to discredit and harm my children.   

At the time there were also issues in relation to my daughters writing component marking of her ELLA test.  This upset my daughter so much as she had been worried and complaining about being bullied and marked down at school to a point where her friends noticed that something was wrong. 

Results received for writing in my daughters ELLA test did not reflect her usual ability or achievements in writing and she was a gifted writer so she asked me to challenge the mark.  We requested documents to be produced under FOI and a re-mark of the writing component of the test be carried out.  The re-mark was carried out by persons who had a conflict of duties/interests as FOI documents show that they were in communation with the Selective Schools Unit/Educational Measurement Directorate and the 'so called' re-mark confirmed the original marking despite obvious errors in marking. 

I forwarded a  letter to the Department of Education regarding the outstanding agreements at the ADT on 11 June 2004  and enclosed a Responding to Suggestion and complaint form again complaining about the manner of handling the matters pertaining to my children and seeking a proper and fair investigation as promised in relation to my eldest sons Year 5 OC application in 2000, our eldest daughters OC application for 2001 and both our childrens Year 7 application in 2002 - see here and here.   These letters were replied to on 2 July 2004 here.  This letter confirmed that the agreements made a the ADT on 14 August 2003 had not been honoured and advised that the Department would not investigate the matters and allegations.  This letter once again  referred to the letter from Mr. Refshauge to Mr. Brogden dated 19 December 2003 that said the matter had been deemed closed - see here.

We also lodged two Responding to Suggestions and Complaint forms with the Department of Education in relation to the biased and unfair handling of our sons Year 8 applications for 2004 and appeal and in relation to the marking and re-marking of our daughters Ella test in 2003 - see here and here.  These documents were forwarded to the Audit Directorate,   see email from Audit Directorate to John Murn, Legal Services Directorate here . 

Documents produced under FOI show that enquiries made by the Audit Directorate confirm that the original complaints were never investigated  despite an investigation being promised by Mr. Refshauge - see attached file notes and emails from Audit Directorate and the DET - 2.6.04, 30.6.04, 5.7.04, 5.7.04/2, 13.8.04, 13.8.04/2, 24.8.04 and 26.8.04.

Letter from Mr. Murn dated 26.8.2004.

However, in the letter in response to my complaints with regard to my sons Year 8 Application and my daughters Ella test from the Audit Directorate, see here- (Page 1, Page 2) and dated 19 August 2004, it states that the Audit Directorate would not investigate the fresh complaints because of the following:

1. The markers of the Ella test didn't know my daughter so there was no motive. 

2. The allegations referred to were similar allegations as before and that these allegations had been previously considered and the matter had been deemed closed. 

In the letter in response from Audit Directorate dated 19 August 2004 it states:

"The Department's complaint handling procedures Responding to Suggestions, Complaints and Allegations states that if previous action in relation to the handling of a complaint is considered sufficient and sound, then a further investigation should not be conducted.

I regret that I am unable to assit you with these two complaints"

The Audit Directorate refused to investigate fresh allegations on the basis that earlier different allegations had already been considered and had been deemed closed.  This is despite the fact that all the information received by the Audit Directorate from the DET, see file notes and memo's attached above, all state that the investigation as promised had never taken place?

When we asked for the name of the Ella markers who marked my daughters Ella test we were advised that although the markers put a number at the bottom of the writing that they mark, the names of the test markers are destroyed after the marking had been completed so that they couldn't tell me the name - see attached Statement of Evidence provided in Evidence at the ADT by Salmat the company who provides the markers - here.

The documents produced under FOI clearly show that the allegations have never been addressed or investigated and instead has been internally deemed closed and that Departmental and Government employees have colluded in this matter and that there is a conspiracy to cover up.  My families correspondence is filed away and/or we are ignored.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Comments

[Twisted Confidence]

I have seen how inadequate the Dept of Educ Complaints Handling Procedures are. One school in the Sutherland area had problems for a number of years. The District Superintendent became aware of the problems during the 1st year and at a meeting with staff and union promised things would improve. Next year a new District Superintendent who had to catch up with the problems so naturally the problems kept on going. Again staff and parents started complaining but no action taken by the Dept other than trying to label staff and the complainants as the problem. The teachers even had their husbands form a lobby group which the Dept tried to shut down. A teacher was attacked and threatened a lot of times by a student but again the Dept tried to ignore it and indirectly tried to suggest it was the teachers fault. When the teacher complained the so-called Complaints Handling procedures ignored any of the teachers Occupational health complaints especially the one where the Dept secretly changed the Occupational Health Committee minutes. So the Dept found there was nothing wrong. Isnt it great when the Dept investigates itself against serious allegations of Occupation health problems. Didnt the Police stop investigating itself years ago so the public felt comfident in the investigations? But when the Dept made an allegation against a teacher suddenly the Complaints Procedures went full steam ahead and found the teacher guilty and passed a punishment. Only problem was that the teacher didnt know of the investigation or allegations til after the secret investigation had found the teacher guilty and passed a punishment. When the punished teacher complained that there was not natural justice the Dept said there was and when the teacher resubmitted the complaint to the Head Office guru the complaint was returned marked "not known at this address". Talk about no credibility. No wonder teachers are leaving in droves. The Dept needs to realise that they exist for the teachers, students and parents and not the other way around. Members of the public need a Teachers Integrity Commission like the Police Integrity Commission so that we have some confident in the Complaints Procedures. And a final note - the Dept after so many complaints and problems at this school was pushed screaming into doing a staff welfare Review of the school. Guess what was the Dept found - the staff didnt want to change and communications was not 100%. Lets blame the teachers not ourselves - nothing about bullying or favouritism or teachers being scared at school.
Lesson learnt by teachers and parents is to take their complaints outside - the Depts Complaints handling procedures have no credibility. So off to the media, the opposition, the union or whoever can guarantee a fairer system of complaint reviews.

Jolanda: Hi Twisted Confidence: It is going to get worse I fear because now they have let us know that the Ombudsman is loosing funding and will be unable to investigate the vast majority of complaints against Government Departments. Already the Ombudsman's Office does not investigate 99% of complaints so essentially nothing will change. These are public excuses to justify the increase in complaints being closed without being dealt with and without affording complainants/whistleblowers procedural fairness and natural justice. I wonder when it will explode.