DET Selective Schools Unit

Allegations of systematic victimisation, bullying, educational neglect,

misconduct and maladministration

I want to believe that if people understood what happened and why we requested
documents under FOI with regard to our children's test scores and results that they
might be more openly supportive. I struggle to understand why people won’t speak out
in support of my children and family and why they turn a blind eye when it is the same
Education System that their children are in that is corrupted.
My daughter was an exceptionally intellectually gifted extremely high achieving child.
In primary school she came first in just about every single test in every school she
went to even after acceleration. She applied for entry into Opportunity Class and was
placed on the reserve list. We had concerns with the Opportunity Class test results as
they showed an English mark of 9/20 that my daughter said she couldn’t believe as
she felt extremely confident with her performance on the day and English was an
area of strength for her. She has always maintained that she believes that there is a
1 missing from in front of the 9.
As a result of these issues she decided to be extensively coached for the Selective
High School tests as the OC result had affected her confidence and caused her to
second guess herself when taking tests. She aced the program achieving the
following result:
English mark >99% of students completing the Selective High School
preparation course
Maths mark >95% of students completing the Selective High School
preparation course.
When we were told she was going to be unsuccessful on her original test marks for
any of her Selective High School placement choices we knew something was wrong.
When fellow students she always beat in tests all got in we knew something was
wrong.
We requested the Selective Schools Unit provide her test marks. In the marks letter
dated 10 September 2002 it showed that the school had provided her with the
following school marks
English - 97%
Maths - 92%
The letter also showed component scores that were incorrect as they showed the
following:

1
These scores should have been out of 100 each for a total of 300. When we
received the marks letter stuck to the letter by a paper clip was a copy of a data file
and this data file showed the changing of the scores under the guise of an error in
calculation to a much lower score. That is why we requested FOI documents and
the documents produced are alarming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At every aspect of the process there is evidence of manipulation and bias. This didn't
just happen to one child this has happened to all my 4 children in both Opportunity
class and Selective School placement over many years and impacted my children
over the duration of their schooling.
Despite the fact that the data file received under FOI indicated that test marks were
not sent (see below) we did receive a letter setting out test marks dated 10 Sept.
Despite the fact that the test marks letter indicates that scores were adjusted as the
school assessment was not accurate this is not stated as completed on the
description section below on the data file and the entry is dated 10 January 2003
which is the next year? This 2003 entry also does not fit into the sequence of
events.

The test marks letter to me was dated 10 September 2002 - see letter below.

2
It should be noted that the marks letter states that the Selection Committee ignored
the school mark and adjusted the profile score to 211.98. Documents produced
under FOI below show that only the Sydney Girls High school selection committee
adopted this method/score. St George Girls High selection committee decided to
incorporate the IQ score to award a score of 232.19 – see below.

• SSU = Selective Schools Unit

• SC = Selection Committee
• SGH = Sydney Girls High
• SGG = St George Girls High
• MP = Magda Pollack

SSU Data file received under Freedom of Information (FOI) dated 16 November
2005.

The entry on 10 September 2002 (same date as marks letter)stating that both
selection committees have taken that information and adjusted to the full value of
the test marks does not fit in with the sequence of events as the Selection
Committees had already made their decision and outcomes had already been sent
to students. The Selection Committee guidelines state that profile scores are only
ever adjusted if the result is higher than the decision made by the Selection
Committee not lower.

My daughter had not been at the school for very long and she had just been
accelerated. The principal confirmed in the entry that despite being very impressed
with her and giving her high marks (Eng 97% and Maths 92%) that they could still
have underestimated her. This result and the result from the Selective High high
school preparation course confirms that my daughter was a high performer.
I am not sure what possible difference a principals comment could make to justify the
SSU withholding the test marks letter when offers for placement had already been
made?

At this point I couldn’t work out why a member of the SSU would indicate, after the
outcome results had been received, that Selection Committee members had
changed a students score to a lower score (211.98) than was awarded by a Selection
Committee (232.19). Through documents received under FOI it became obvious
that it was Magda's intention for my daughter to appear to have received a low mark
and to be unsuccessful for placement and that when I appealed the SSU did not
want Sydney Girls High to know the degree of my daughters IQ and/or the actual
score of 232.19 that St George Girls awarded my daugher on the basis of her IQ.

This principal of the school was supportive of my daughters application and appeal
and all of a sudden out of the blue he got a promotion and was moved to a High
school right near where he lived. I was unable to contact him at his new school with
regard to the matter.
St George High School Selection Commiteee Attention report that was produced
under FOI below: These entries support that St George Girls selection Committee
awarded a score of 232.19.

St George Girls High Primary List produce under FOI:

4
St George Girls Selective Schools Report combined list produced under FOI below.
Despite my daughters name being blacked out, the entries show the original profile
score that was said to be allocated of 206.08 put my daughter on the reserve list for
St George Girls. The ST George list list also shows that a new score of 232.19 was
awarded. This list is signed by the selection committee members. The Sydney Girls
list also shows a reserve placement but with a score of 211.98.

We had made complaints about the neglect of the education of Gifted Children and
had been liasing with the Sutherland District Office and we were informed by them
that they had been advised by the Leader of the Selective Schools Unit that in the
first instance my daughters marks were not enough to get her a place for either of
her Selective high school choices. The Sutherland District office in response lodged
an illness misadventure claim targeting her school marks.
We were then advised that she was unsuccessful for Sydney Girls but was made an
offer for St George Girls High. We appealed the decision not to place her in Sydney
Girls.
As the outcome did not represent my daughters normal very high level of
performance and achievement and my daughter was coached extensively for the
Selective High School test and since she had similar issues with the OC test she
requested to view the test papers and her answers.
We attended the DET to view the test papers. In the first instance we were upset as
the test papers and answer sheets were not the originals from ACER as requested
(the company who conducted the tests) instead the DET provided an electronic print
out from the DET’s computer and they didn’t provide the answer key.
We were ushered into an office of the DET and three personnel from the DET were
in the room with us. While we were attempting to concentrate those present from the
5
DET kept bringing up issues and disturbing the children and distressing my children.
As we were not provided with the answer key it was a very difficult process. I kept
asking those present to stop interrupting my children and kept telling them that they
were disturbing and upsetting my children but they didn’t care. At one point one of
them turned to me and said “Mrs Challita let your children be children”. This really
upset my daughter as she felt bad that I was being blamed because they wanted to
check their marks and results. In the end I removed my children and left as they
became upset and we were unable to do what we had gone there to do. This was
supposed to be a quiet and safe environment for my children to go through their test
papers as they didn’t believe the resuts and we were bullied and harrassed by DET
staff until they left in tears.
We were unable to re view the original test booklet and answer sheet that my
children noted their answers o from ACER (the company who conducted the tests)
as these documents were destroyed on 18 June 2003. The documents were
destroyed on the exact day the matter was listed for planning meeting at the
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Tribunal for access to the documents under FOI.
The destruction of the test booklet and answer sheets was confirmed via email - see
below.

6
When I brought up the fact that the DET had organised the destruction of the
documents whilst part of an FOI request being put before the ADT the response of
the ADT was that the DET can’t produce documents that they do not have and the
fact that they destroyed them whilst part of an FOI application was ‘outside their
jurisdiction’

Interestingly on the Appeal cover sheet prepared by Magda Pollack of the Selective
Schools Unit there is yet another score noted – see below:

7
The appeal lodged by us is set out below:

8
9
10
Magda Pollack, the Leader of the Selective Schools unit prepared the Appeal Analysis to
present to the Appeals panel with recommendations. See below”

11
12
The Appeal Analysis is full of biased personal opinions.

It is not true that the school had not been asked to comment the Principal even
spoke to the Selective Schools Unit. They had supporting evidence that I had sent,
including a file from the District Office and they actually note it on the appeal analysis
when they set out the Parent information
We later challenged the Selective Schools Unit with regard to IQ tests needing to be
less than 2 years old as our daughters IQ test was 2.5 years old and nowhere did it
state on the application that IQ tests had to be less than 2 years old. It should be
noted that my daughters actual IQ of 161 is not mentioned in the appeal analysis
prepared by Magda Pollack. We had provided two different tests the SB4 with a
result of 161 and the SBLM that supported the result from the SB4. We received this
information below:

13
The score awarded by the St George Girls High SC of 232.19 is not noted on the
appeal analysis instead the lower changed score of 214.26 is noted.

*************************Data file dated 4 September 2002*************************

This data file came stuck by a paper clip to my children’s marks letter dated 10
September 2002. It was sent by mistake. In it you can see the changing of the
score by Magda Pollack on 12 August 2002 from 232.19 to the lower score of 214.26
for St George Girls High under the guise of an error in calculation.

14
On the data file sent by mistake dated 4 August 2002 the entry on the 8th August is
different to the entries on the same date on the Data files received under FOI. The
entry on the 12 August 2002 lowering the score under the guise of an error in
calculation also did not form part on the Data File that we received under FOI on 17
September 2002 see below or 16 November 2005 (see beginning of document).
Data file dated 17 September 2002 received under FOI

Despite all the St George Girls High Selective Schools Reports and the Data Files
received under FOI stating the Selection Committee for St George Girls High
awarded a score of 232.19 the Leader of the Selective Schools Unit Magda
Pollack presented the lowered deleted score of 214.26 to the Appeals panel. She
also presented in the marks letter dated 10 September that both selection
committees had adjusted score to 211.98 when this was not the case.

15
Throughout the documents received under FOI there are instructions as below: St
George Girls Selective Schools Action report.

Data file received under FOI dated 17 September 2002

Data file received under FOI dated 16 November 2005

Throughout the duration of my daughters Primary school education as my children

were struggling to cope at school I made public complaints about the neglect of the
education of intellectually gifted children. The school told me on more than one
occasion that they didn’t have the funding or resources to cater for my child and that
once she got to Opportunity Class and Selective School placement that things would
get better. She was however unsuccessful for placement in Opportunity class being
put on the reserve list and lost her appeal. My daughter was very upset by this result
as she had been waiting a very long time for school to get better. Eventually after
some representations she was made an offer from the reserve list and she took up
the offer. She was so disillusioned with the Opportunity Class. She thought it was
going to make a difference. It didn’t. The teacher was nearing retirement and his
method of teaching was repetitive; giving work sheets, after work sheet after work
sheet which he had fellow students mark and then he threw in the bin.
She became so withdrawn, depressed and sick and she didn’t want to go to school
she told me that she couldn’t even contemplate the thought of spending two years in
that Opportunity class. That is when she decided to accelerate a year.

16
Since her brother was in the year above in Opportunity Class and she was even
more advanced than him she knew she would have no trouble with the work at all.
She couldn’t accelerate in that OC School as her brother had said that he didn’t mind
her jumping into his year but not in his school. That is why she moved to the
Opportunity class then from the Opportunity class skipped a year in another school.
I believe that the intention of Magda Pollack was to make sure my daughter was
unsuccessful for OC and Selective High School placement. This was made difficult
for her by the fact that the District Office got involved to support my daughter as did
the Principal of the school and that is the only reason why my daughter ended up
being offered a place.

I believe my children’s test marks and results/outcomes were manipulated. I believe

this because
• The data file shows test marks were 'not sent' when they were sent
• The component scores on the test marks letter that was sent didn’t add up to
300 and the final profile score of 211.98 said to have been awarded on the
marks letter by both selection committees doesn’t match what is stated in the
data file or on the Selection Committee registers and lists or the appeal
analysis; 211.98 would have meant she was on reserve for both schools.
• The Profile score incorporating IQ awarded by St George of 232.19 was
changed after the SC met to a lower score of 214.26 by Magda and then the
lower score of 214.26 was deleted but lower score still used on appeal
analysis.
• The IQ test was presented as out of date and invalid when it was a valid test.
• My children were bullied and harassed whilst trying to check their test marks at
the DET in Parramatta and the viewing was as a result unsuccessful.
• It is stated in an internal file note produced under FOI from John Murn that in
Magda's view there should be no reviewing of the test papers after I requested
another viewing with the original test papers, answer book and key as the first
one had been sabotaged.

• The SSU organised the destruction of the original test answers booklet (whilst
under an FOI application) so that we couldn’t check the original answers and
test marks so as to verify the marks that they said they had received
• All complaints were given to Magda Pollack to deal with.
I believe that the IQ test was presented as being over 2 years old and invalid so that
the Selection Committees wouldn’t consider my daughters IQ and my daughter
would be unsuccessful. 17
I believe that Magda Pollack had originally intended to use the 211.98 ignoring
school marks score noted on the marks letter and place my daughter on reserve list
for both schools but after a conversation with Ken Olah (who was on the Selection
Committee - this is noted on the data file) he explained that it was the selection
Committee wanted to start the relationship well with the mother by making a first
round offer and that the intention of the Selection Committee was that she would be
offered a place in St George Girls High. So Magda couldn’t use the 211.98
(ignoring school marks score) so she lowered the score under a guise of an error in
calculation to 214.26 so that my daughter would be unsuccessful on appeal for
Sydney Girls and printed copies of the data sheet and then deleted the entry on the
data file. A copy of that data sheet got stuck by a paper clip to the marks letter that
was sent.
If Sydney Girls accepted the IQ test or the score of 232.19 awarded by St George
Girls SC that score would have meant my daughter would have been successful for
placement for Sydney Girls, with a score of 214.26 she would have been
unsuccessful for an offer for Sydney Girls. The score of 211.98 would have put her
on reserve for both schools.
I believe Magda Pollack wanted to keep my daughter out of selective schools and
failing that she wanted to keep her local to the shire so that the bullies in the DET
could to continue to bully and victimise my daughter. It was payback for me being
so outspoken about the neglect of the education of gifted children. There had been
an article written in the Daily Telegraph about my family by Maralyn Parker wherein
she said that the Principal of the school wasn’t very smart. This did not go down
well with the Principal/school.

My children were systematically bullied and marked down so as to deny them entry
into selective schools so as to discredit my children and me as if they are
unsuccessful for placement in Selective Schools people automatically think that they
are obviously not as gifted as their mother says they are. They made my children
and families life so difficult and caused so much stress, anxiety, anguish and despair
- it caused significant medical, physical and psychological issues.
The whole school situation was made more difficult by the fact that we were zoned to
a Specialist Sports High School and my kids didn’t want to be in a specialist’s sports
high school and my children couldn’t be in the same school as they were in the same
year.
18
We had hoped that the children would have been successful for Sydney Boys and
Sydney Girls so that they could both be educated outside the Sutherland Shire area
as we had so many issues with bullying and victimisation aimed at our children by
some local school staff. We wanted our kids to be safe. I had appealed for Sydney
Girls for our daughter but would only have accepted placement if our son was
successful for his appeal for Sydney Boys.
My eldest son had managed to get a place in Opportunity Class from the Reserve list
during the school year the year before as a child had pulled out of OC during the
school year and they were working their way down the reserve list (he was in the
year above). He had an amazing teacher, he was so happy and motivated he was
like a different child.
In the same year while my daughter eventually managed to get a place in a Selective
High school; my son, who was in Opportunity Class, was advised that he was
unsuccessful for a first round offer and was low on the reserve list. We appealed the
decision not to offer him placement and provided evidence of his high IQ and high
achievement. He lost his appeal. He was devastated as Opportunity Class was the
first time in his school life that he was happy and he had expected to move on to a
Selective High School with all his class mates. He was left behind. It was a very
scary time as the depth of the humiliation, depression and despair it triggered in him
was alarming and we felt strongly that we needed to put him on suicide watch during
that time.
Documents produced under FOI with regard to my son are absolutely alarming and
are very similar with regard the scores and presenting incorrect scores to the Appeal
panel and the changing of outcomes. I will be working on producing a similar
document to this with regard to the process used for him next but once again the
Selection Committee actually did the right thing and he was put on the offer list and
Magda Pollack accessed the results after the selection Committee met and made
their decision and removed him from the offer list and put him on the reserve list. It
is as clear as day on the copy of the Selection Committee Report - it is her name,
with the instructions in a bubble saying that he is being moved from the offer list
(CARo) to the reserve list as calculation was wrong.

We also applied for our son for Year 8 in 2003 and appealed. Again all documents
produced under FOI show bias and a conflict of interest/duties by those processing
his application and sitting on appeal panels. This is despite the fact that they sign
declarations to say that they have no conflict of interests.
Following that I will move on to my youngest daughters (also a very highly gifted, high
achieving accelerated student) applications for OC application 2004 for entry in 2005
and appeal. Selective High School application 2006 for 2007 and appeal
As despite begging anybody who would listen and writing to every Minister,
Investigatory body, newspaper etc to seek help to protect my younger children from
being dealt with the same way by the same people – everybody turned a blind eye
preferring to protect the reputation of the Department of Education instead.
We also applied for my youngest son OC 2007 for 2008 and Selective High School
19 what was going to happen and it did.
2009 for 2010 but of course we knew exactly