Page |1

Below are details in relation to my eldest sons Opportunity Class and Selective schools selection
process.

The history is very similar to my eldest daughter in that we were concerned that our children were
being victimised and discredited as a result of my public complaints about the neglect of their
education as identified gifted students

Often (as they were both in the same year from year 6 onwards due to acceleration) the responses
etc for my children were done at the same time by the Selective Schools Unit.

My son applied for Opportunity Class in Year 4 and was placed on the reserve list in the first instance
- see below.

Letter advising placement on the reserve list.

We did not appeal the reserve placement as although he had been identified by two different IQ
tests as being very highly intellectually gifted, he was not happy at school and he was not motivated,
he had a negative attitude to school and he wasn’t always performing highly and given his attitude
to school I actually believed that he wouldn’t even want to go even if he did get in. School marks
provided by the school were as follows:

In the April of the next year (year 5) we received a call from the Selective Schools Unit. Apparently a
student had decided to leave the OC School and return to his local school and they were working
their way down the reserve list offering placement. Given that it was the beginning of the new
school year it was difficult for them to fill the place as students were already established and didn’t
want to move schools.
 Page |2

My son was offered a place in the Opportunity Class. When I told my son about the offer he
surprised me by accepting the offer and agreeing to move to the OC School.

This OC teacher was absolutely amazing. Suddenly my son was like a different child. He was focused
and motivated and he was so happy. The two years in opportunity class were the happiest I had
seen him in years and he was enjoying going to school.

When the time came for Selective High Schools applications to be lodged I made an appointment
with the teacher to talk to her about whether my son needed coaching as despite being very
highly/exceptionally intellectually students my children had both ended up on the reserve list
previously. I had spoken to my son about coaching and he didn’t want to do it. His Opportunity
Class teacher advised me that she did not believe that my son needed to be coached and she was
confident that he would be successful in gaining placement into a Selective High School. On the
basis of that, although my daughter chose to be extensively coached, my son chose not to be
coached for the test.

When my son received his outcome letter it showed that he was unsuccessful for an offer in any of
his choices and that he was on the reserve list for Caringbah High. My son was extremely
distressed about this result as Opportunity Class was the first time in his school life that he had been
happy and he had anticipated moving onto a Selective High School with his friends.

We appealed the decision not to offer him a place and had provided documentary evidence of his
high level of giftedness, the fact that he was already in Opportunity Class and also evidence of high
performance/achievement and our appeal was unsuccessful.

We requested the Selective Schools Unit provide us with our sons test marks. When we received the
letter we noted that the Component scores were not out of 100 each as they should have been and
that they didn’t add up to 300.

Marks letter dated 10 September 2003

 Page |3

Both our son and daughters marks letters were received together and the component scores on
both presented the same way in that they didn’t add up and stuck to the marks letter by a
paperclip was a copy of my daughters Data File and on that data file it showed the changing of her
profile score to a much lower score by Magda Pollack under the guise of an error in calculation. As
a result of these anomalies we requested documents under FOI with regard to the Opportunity
Class and Selective High school selection process and appeals for both children.

In the first instance documents produced under FOI with regard to the Opportunity Class test
showed that there was 61 answers listed for 60 multiple choice questions.

When we brought this to the attention of the SSU we were advised that my son’s second initial had
inadvertently slipped onto the next line and formed part of the answers. This was impossible to be
true as my son didn’t have a second name and therefore didn’t have a second initial.

We also received under FOI a data file from the Selective Schools Unit dated 17 September 2002
with regard to the Selective High School application. We noted that on the data file in the
description field the fact that marks were sent was not noted when in fact we had requested the
marks and received the marks letter dated 10 September 2002.

In the marks letter dated 10 September 2002 it states the following.

When we examined the data file received under FOI we noticed that there were two different scores
noted. There was an entry on 30 July 2002 stating that Caringbah Selection Committee adjusted
score to 213.33 on the basis of I/3 IQ and 2/3 Gat and then there appears to be a score just added
to the end of = 199.92.

The next entry indicated Sydney Boys High Selection Committee noted: 9 August 2002 - As above
for Caringbah.

See below
 Page |4

We received under FOI the Selective Schools Primary List from Caringbah High School Selection
Committee printed on 26 July 2002. This list shows a score of 213.33.

The decision for Caringbah High noted on the data file was entered on 30th July. This was the
same day the Caringbah High combined school List was printed. See below.
 Page |5

This list shows that the score the Selection Committee awarded was 213.33 and the outcomes show
that my son was unsuccessful for Sydney Boys High SBHu but was successful for Caringbah High
CARo.

******There is then a handwritten note by Magda Pollack that says:

• See Magda - moved to reserve list because calculation was wrong!

Guidelines for Selection Committees received under FOI (see below) states that if a score has been
altered by the selection committee there would be an asterisk to the right of it

This was the second time that documents produced under FOI show that Magda Pollack had
accessed results/outcomes (after the Selection Committee had made their decisions) and
lowered my children’s scores to a lower score so as to keep them out of a Selective School.

In the case of our son she didn’t just lower the score to 199.92 she actively went in after the
selection Committees offered him a place and removed him from the offer list and put him on
the reserve list.

Documents produced under FOI and printed on 31 July 2002 from Sydney Boys High Reserve
list shows a hand written entry showing the score awarded by the Selection Committee as
213.33 see below. This list places my son low on the reserve list for this school.
 Page |6

Documents produced under FOI and printed on 1 August 2002 from Sydney Boys confirms that
the Selection Committees adjusted the score to 213.33 – see below.

The Sydney Boys High school Over-ride list printed on 9 August 2002, although my sons name has
been blacked out, shows a score of 213.33 as awarded - see below.

The 9th August was the same day the entries were made on the data file for Sydney Boys High.

This list also shows the following outcome SBHu (Sydney Boys High Unsuccessful) and CARo
(Caringbah High Offer)
 Page |7

We appealed the decision not to place our son on the grounds, amongst other things, that my son
wasn’t coached. Our appeal is below:
 Page |8

The Appeal Cover sheet presented to the Appeal panel showed Magda Pollack presented the lower
profile score of 199.92 as the score that was awarded by the Selection Committee.
 Page |9

The appeal analysis prepared by Magda Pollack on the basis of our Appeal is biased, incomplete and
unfair – see below
 P a g e | 10

Our son was not successful for placement in a Selective High school even on appeal. This had a
significant impact on his mental health, emotional and physical wellbeing and education. It was a
very difficult time as we were zoned to a Specialist Sports High School and due to an injury at birth
 P a g e | 11

my son suffered a permanent injury and he did not want to go to a Specialist Sports high school. He
became very depressed. We didn’t have a school for him to go to. The Department of Education
didn’t care.

I believe that our son’s was treated unfairly and his scores and results were manipulated and
tampered with and that he was discriminated against on the following:

1. He was an identified very highly intellectually gifted student who was in Opportunity Class
and thriving and the expectation from all was that he would be successful.
2. The date file indicates that the test marks were not sent when they were.
3. The component scores on the test marks letter do not add up to 100 or a total of 300 as they
should.
4. The outcome and score set out on the marks letter does not match the outcome and score
set out on the Selection Committee registers and lists.
5. The Profile score of = 199.92 noted at the end of the entry on the Data File from Caringbah
High School does not match the profile score of 213.33 as awarded by the Selection
Committees and shown on the Selective School registers and lists.
6. The offer of placement (CARo) shown on the Selective Schools registers does not match the
reserve list outcome which our son was advised.
7. The score of = 199.92 appears to have just been added to the end of the entry setting out the
Selection Committee’s decision.
8. The Caringbah High School list shows an entry from Magda Pollack removing our son from
the offer list, after the Selection Committees had made their decision, and moving him on
the reserve list under the guise of an error in calculation.

9. The Appeal analysis prepared by Magda Pollack is biased, unfair, incomplete and unjust and
was prepared to ensure an unsuccessful result.
10. Magda Pollack presented the lower score of 199.92 to the Appeals panel and not the score
of 213.33 awarded by the Selection Committees.
11. We requested to be provided with access under FOI to the original answer booklet and test
documents to verify the marks/results and on the exact day the matter was for planning
meeting at the ADT to get access to these original documents these documents were
destroyed. We believe that they were destroyed so that we would not be able to verify the
accuracy of the test marks and prove that they had been manipulated. Documents under
FOI show the organising of the destruction the day before the planning meeting at the ADT.
12. When my children attended the office of the DET to check the DET’s electronic print out of
the tests and their answers they were bullied and harassed by DET staff until they became
distressed and I had to remove them and we left. We were unable to check the validity of
the results.
13. The DET have permitted Magda Pollack to control all aspects of the complaints in relation to
the Selection process and appeals and discredit us and cover up all complaints made by our
family.
 P a g e | 12

14. We were told, after they destroyed the original test answer sheet, whilst under and FOI
request so that we couldn’t verify the marks, that since we couldn’t prove that the test
marks were manipulated in the first instance that they would not investigate anything that
happened after that including what happened at the Selection Committees meetings and
appeals.
15. We allege a conspiracy to cover up.

Next I will do a similar document with regard to my younger daughters Opportunity Class and
Selective School applications for entry into OC 2005 and SS 2007. Once again an accelerated,
identified very highly intellectually gifted high achieving public student that was unable to get
access to selective schools even when the local public school said that they were not in a position to
cater for her as a very highly gifted child. We had requested that Magda Pollack and those
involved in this matter not be permitted to process her applications as there had been allegations
made against them of bias, victimisation, manipulation and misconduct that we alleged were part
of a conspiracy to cover up. The documents are alarming.

Then I will do a similar document with regard to our youngest sons applications for OC in