On 11 November 2008 I received a bundle of documents under FOI. The documents fill in the blanks and clearly confirm the allegations that my family make have substance and are supported by documentary evidence. I am in the process of uploading the documents to support my families claim and clearly present what was done by Magda Pollak to our children's school applications.
THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS:
Without going into the issues in detail with regard to our allegations in relation to bias, victimisation, vilification, bullying and manipulation of tests/documents and marks in the first instance and subsequently, I am going to focus hereunder on the processing of the scores allocated when it started.
In order to give a quick overview, what happened was that in the Year 2000 I started making some public and written complaints about the neglect of the education of our gifted children and how it was impacting on their health and well-being. Our children were obvious identified highly gifted children that were suffering in the comprehensive system as the curriculum was far too low and too slow for their intellectual needs. Following my complaints things started happening to the children that can only be described as "obviously wrong". I have 4 children and they have all been impacted at different times and on more than one occasion each from that year.
The issues in relation to the process of the handling of my children's school applications by the Selective Schools Unit and the Selection Committees with regard to my children are interesting and I will set out hereunder what we have discovered to date.
OPPORTUNITY CLASS APPLICATION FOR MY ELDEST SON - YEAR 2000 FOR placement in 2001 - (IQ 150 - 155)
His profile score was assessed at 203.46, see attached. This score was confirmed in a letter to us. This profile score should have been enough for an offer of a place for Caringbah North Public, see attached. He was not offered a place and was advised he was unsuccessful despite his score being above the cut-off minimum score required.
OPPORTUNITY CLASS APPLICATION FOR ELDEST DAUGHTER - YEAR 2001 FOR PLACEMENT IN 2002 - (IQ 160-165).
Her profile score was assessed at 208.14. This profile score was enough for an offer of placement for Caringbah North Public School - see attached. She was not offered a place despite the Selection Committee list and Register, see attached, showing that she was successful for an offer for Caringbah North (CARo) and despite the score being above the minimum score required for placement.
We appealed the decision not to offer her a place and the appeal was unsuccessful despite the appeal profile score awarded being a score of 212.12. A score that was also well above the minimum score required for entry into Opportunity Class and should have also resulted in an offer for a place.
SELECTIVE HIGH SCHOOL PLACEMENT FOR ELDEST SON 2002 FOR ENTRY IN 2003 - (IQ 150-155)
His profile score was assessed at 192.04. His test scores did not reflect his normal achievement and in the letter advising of marks there are issues and discrepancies that include scores that do not add up - see attached. He had provided two different IQ tests that both put his IQ over 150 together with substantial evidence of academic merit in external University test results and his school reports
This profile score of 192.04 was enough for him to be considered by the Selection Committees and in the letter advising of the test results forwarded to us it stated "The Selection Committee considered further information provided and adjusted your child's score to 199.92.
However, the entry on the data file produced under FOI states the following result from the Selection Committees considerations:-
5/8/02: "Caringbah School Selection Committee adjusted score to 213.33 on the basis of 1/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT = 199.92. See attached.
We challenged the fact that there were two scores noted. Documents produced under FOI that included the IQ Equivalent chart used by the Selective Schools Unit support the calculation of the score of I/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT as 213.33 and not 199.92.
Recent evidence produced under FOI, in a document that was printed on 31/7/02 (the date the Selection Committee met), on the Caringbah HIgh School Selection Committee list and register it shows that the score that the Selection Committee allocated for Danny was 213.33. With this score it shows that Danny would have been unsuccessful for Sydney Boys but successful for Caringbah High (SBHu) (CARo)
However you will note that on a hand written entry on the Lists and Register it then states: SEE MAGDA - MOVED TO RESERVE LIST BECAUSE CALCULATION WAS WRONG! . See attached.
In a document that was printed on 9/8/02 (the date that Sydney Boys Selection Committee met) on the Sydney Boys Selection Committee lists and register it shows once again that the score that the Selection Committee allocated was 213.33 - see attached. With a score of 213.33 Danny would have been unsuccessful for Sydney Boys High but successful for Caringbah High (SBHu) (CARo).
For the year 2002/2003 the minimum cut of scores for Sydney Boys was 215 and for Caringbah High was 201 - see attached.
The hand written entry moving Danny to the reserve list is not dated but given that on the 9/8/02 the score still presents as 213.33 in the official records this confirms that Danny was removed from the 'offer' list and placed on the 'reserve' list after the Selection Committees made their decision and that Magda Pollak changed his score.
We appealed the decision. Magda Pollak presented an Appeal Analysis to the Appeals panel which presented biased personal opinions and a misrepresentation of the facts and presented the changed lower score of 199.92 as the profile score and recommended that there be no adjustment made.
SELECTIVE HIGH SCHOOL PLACEMENT FOR ELDEST DAUGHTER 2002 FOR ENTRY IN 2003 - (IQ -160-165)
On the records it shows that Katie's profile score was originally assessed at 206.08. This was adjusted by the Sydney Girls High School Selection Committee when they met on 5/8/02 to 211.98. This score shows on the Selection Committee LIst and Register as resulting in an reserve list placement for Sydney Girls High school and a reserve list placement for St George Girls high School (SGHr) (SGGr). See attached.
On data files produced under FOI there is an entry on 25/7/02 by MP (Magda Pollak) wherein the Sutherland District Office rang and spoke to Magda to find out what was happening with Katie' s application. At that time Karen was advised that Katie was not successful for either Sydney Girls or St George and that she was on the reserve list for both.
It appears from the documents that Katie was put on the Reserve list for Sydney Girls and St George Girls High before the Selection Committees met and this is despite Katie obtaining a profile score of 206.08, a score that was above the cut off for St George Girls High. Documents produced under FOI show that in 2002/2003, whilst the minimum entry score for Sydney Girls was 217, the minimum score for St George Girls High it was 203. See attached.
An illness misadventure claim was lodged by the District Office targeting Katie's marks as I had made formal complaints to the District Office about the neglect of the education of our children and had brought to their attention the difficulties my children were having getting access to the schools my children needed to attend so as to better cater for their identified educational needs as intellectually gifted children. The District Office sent a letter to the Selective schools Unit confirming that Katie was an identified gifted child, confirming that Katie had had a lot of issues in her public school schooling and had changed school alot as a result, and asking the Selective schools unit to place Katie in the Selective High School of her choice.
The entry noted on the official data file produced under FOI in November 2002 and November 2005 states the following results from the Selection Committee deliberations.
8/8/02: "St George Girls High School Selection Committee: Recommend I/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT = 232.19. See attached.
This calculation of the score of 232.19 has been signed for and confirmed by more than one Selection Committee members and the correct score and this information is also present on Katie's Data file produced under FOI in November 2002 and November 2005.
HOWEVER - IN AN ENTRY DATED 12/9/82 (after the Selection Committee met) IN A copy of a DATA FILE dated 4/9/02 WE RECEIVED STUCK BY A PAPER CLIP TO THE CHILDREN'S MARKS RESULTS LETTER IT STATES THE FOLLOWING:
12/8/02: Calculation above based on error. The calculation should have been 1/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT. This would result in a score of 214.26. Selection Committees to be advise - see attached (Page 1, Page 2, Page 3)
This entry calculating 1/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT as 214.26 instead of 232.19 did not appear on any data files produced under FOI. All the documents produced under FOI show the higher score as the calculation. However the lower score of 214.26 was presented to the Appeals panel by Magda Pollak as the calculation of Katie's score. This score meant that Katie lost her appeal to Sydney Girls High. A score of 232.19 would have meant that she was successful for a place .
Recent documents produced under FOI confirm that Magda Pollak changed both Danny and Katies test scores to lower scores after the Selection Committee members met and these scores meant that they were unsuccessful for offers into the schools of their choice. Documents also clearly show that apart from providing incorrect scores to the Appeals panel Magda Pollak also presented. biased, false and misleading information to the Appeals panel on which to base their decision.
There is also the issue of discrepancies and errors to do with the test marks!
Despite requesting that the original answer sheets be set aside and produced under FOI so that we could verify the test marks, on the morning the matter was listed for planning meeting at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal in order to force the DET to provide the requested original documents, the original answer sheets were destroyed the DET later stating that since they had copies on the results computer that they didn't' think it was necessary to keep the originals. This is in breach of the record keeping Act and the FOI Act. These documents were part of an FOI application when they were destroyed. This can only be seen as an attempt to cover up.
ELDEST SON APPLIES FOR SELECTIVE SCHOOL PLACEMENT FOR YEAR 8 FOR 2003 - unsuccessful - lost appeal - (IQ 150-155)
Application processed by Magda Pollak despite formal requests that she having nothing to do with our children's applications as formal allegations of bias and misconduct had been made against her. Documents produced under FOI show bias, tampering and manipulation. Voting members on the Appeals panel had formal allegations of bias and misconduct made against them and had a conflict of duties/interests.
YOUNGEST DAUGHTER APPLIES FOR OPPORTUNITY CLASS 2003/2004 - unsuccessful - lost appeal - (IQ 145-150)
Application processed by member of Selective Schools Unit that had formal allegations made against them despite formal requests that they having nothing to do with our children's applications as formal allegations of bias and misconduct had been made against them. Documents produced under FOI show bias, tampering and manipulation.
YOUNGEST DAUGHTER APPLIES FOR SELECTIVE HIGH SCHOOL PLACEMENT 2006/07- unsuccesful - lost appeal - (IQ 145-150)
Application processed by Magda Pollak despite formal requests that she having nothing to do with our daughters applications as formal allegations of bias, victimisation and misconduct had been made against her. Requests made for our daughter to be exempt from sitting the test and be processed on the basis of his identified needs, including public school reports and IQ tests as conducted by the Department of Education as previous issues with results from the Selective Schools unit and formal allegations made. Request denied. Documents produced under FOI show bias, tampering and manipulation.
YOUNGEST SON APPLIES FOR OPPORTUNITY CLASS 2007/2008 - unsuccessful - lost appeal
One again my sons application processed by those who have had allegations of bias and misconduct made against them. Requests made for our son to be exempt from sitting the test and be processed on the basis of his identified needs as previous issues with results from the Selective Schools unit and formal allegations made. Request denied.
At no time have my family been afforded procedural fairness and natural justice or impartial and unbiased decisions. There have been many breaches in Public Service codes and acts and formal allegations of a conspiracy to cover up have been ignored.
2008/9 FOR 2010 - YOUNGEST SON WANTS TO APPLY FOR SELECTIVE SCHOOL PLACEMENT AS, IF HE HAD A CHOICE, HE WOULD LIKE TO GO TO A BOYS ONLY HIGH SCHOOL THAT IS ACADEMICALLY BASED AS HE IS ACADEMICALLY FOCUSED AND GETS VERY ANNOYED AT ALL THE CARRYING ON WITH THE GIRLS AT CO-ED SCHOOLS. PROBLEM IS THAT WITHOUT THIS MATTER BEING RESOLVED MAKING AN APPLICATION WOULD BE A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME AND MAY EVEN WORK TO MAKE MY SON A TARGET.
Comments