.

My daughter was an exceptionally intellectually gifted extremely high achieving

student who struggled to have her needs met in the public school system. Many
complaints were made to the District Office and to the Minister. In primary school she
came first in just about every single test in every school she went to even after
acceleration.
We had issues 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.
In year 4 she accelerated one year into year 5. This meant that she was in the
same year as her brother who was in Opportunity Class. She couldn’t accelerate at
her brother’s OC school as he had indicated that he didn’t mind her accelerating into
his year but not in his school.
As a result of these issues, she decided to be extensively coached for the Selective
High School tests completing two preparation programs as she wanted to feel
confident and sure of her results. She achieved a 99% in English and 95% in maths
in the preparation courses.
When we were told by the District Office that 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. They didn't
add up and stuck to the test marks 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 of tests, results and
outcomes, bias and a conflict of duties. 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 right to HSC.
Despite the fact that the data file received under FOI indicated that test marks were
not sent (see data file snip below) we did receive the test marks dated 10 September
2003 – see below.

1
Test marks letter is dated 10 September 2002.

It should be noted that the individual component scores do not add up and should be
out of 100 each to a total of 300 not as set out in the letter.

2
It should also be noted that the letter states that the Selection Committee ignored the
school mark in favour of the test marks and adjusted the score to 211.98.
On 10 September, the date on the marks letter, the principal of my daughter’s school
rang the Selective Schools Unit – see data file below. My daughter had only been at
the school since April as she had accelerated from another school. The question
has to be asked as to why or how a principal’s comment, after students have been
advised of an outcome, could possibly make a difference to the marks letter and why
they would be worried and not forward the letter. Also why the conversation would
result in a lower score than the selection committee had awarded of 232.19 when the
Principal had underestimated her school marks that he had awarded of 97 for
English and 92 for maths.
Documents produced under FOI entry on 8 August 2002 shows that St George Girls
High selection committee decided to incorporate the IQ score and calculate the
score as 1/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT and award a score of 232.19 – see below.

3
 • SSU = Selective Schools Unit
• SC = Selection Committee
• SGH = Sydney Girls High
• SGG = St George Girls High
• MP = Magda Pollack

My daughters appeal was unsuccessful.

This principal 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
4
the matter to get support for my daughter and I was told that the matter had been
deemed ‘outside the guidelines of the schools’. I was also told by my daughters
teachers that they had been gagged and they would loose their job if they tried to get
involved.
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:

5
St George Girls Selective Schools Report combined list produced under FOI below,
despite my daughters name being blacked out, the entries show shows the outcome
that the Selection Committee awarded a new score of 232.19.

We had been liasing with the 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
school choices. The Sutherland District office in response lodged an illness
misadventure claim targeting her school marks.
When we received the marks letter dated 10 September 2002 there was stuck
by a paperclip a copy of a data file dated 4 September 2002 (see below) that
showed a changing of scores under the guise of an error in calculation with the date
8 August 2003 initials MP (Magda Pollack).

Two copies of data files were received under f FOI by us one dated 17 September
2003 and one dated 11 November 2005. Both these data files show the score from
St George Girls as 232.19 they do not show the changing of the scores to the lower
score. The lower score was used to determine placement and presented to the
appeals panel together with biased personal opinions.
We were 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.

6
Magda Pollack presented the score of 214.26 to the Appeals panel together with an
appeal analysis of my appeal which was filled with biased and person opinions.

As the outcome did not represent my daughters normal level of high 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 we wanted the original
Answer sheets to be produced under FOI (we believed they had been tampered
with) so as to view and check the test papers, and answers with her answers as this
was seriously impacting her confidence, her mental health and her wellbeing.
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 had been

7
previously informed that the DET could alter or change the marks before importing
scores to their system from ACER and so we wanted the original answer sheets.
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
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 distressed 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. In documents under FOI it confirms that my
children were crying and Magda Pollack tries to blame me suggesting DOCs be
notified.

We asked to view the tests again with the original answer sheets but was given the
run around. It is indicated in documents produced under FOI that Magda Pollack
stated that there should be no revisiting of the tests – see below.

8
(Note the name Dave Wasson for when I post my youngest daughters OC
application information. Before it was lodged we requested that her application not
be processsed by anybody that had allegations against them and the allegations had
not been investigated. Dave Wasson was presented as not having been involved in
my families matter and being impartial!)

We were unable to re view the original test booklet and answer sheet from ACER
(the company who conducted the tests) as these documents were destroyed on 18
June 2003. We had requested test booklets and the original answer sheets be
produced 7 months prior under FOI applications but we had been told by the DET
that they were exempt by the DET until we had to take the matter to the
Administrative Decisions Tribunal for access. The original answer sheets were
destroyed on the exact day the matter was listed for planning meeting at the
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Tribunal for access to the answer sheets under
FOI. The destruction of the test booklet and answer sheets was confirmed via email
- see below.
Snip advising me the date of the Planning meeting for 18 June 2003

Email dated 17 June 2003 from the Selective Schools Unit to ACER okaying the
destruction of the test booklets.

9
Email from ACER confirming the test booklets were destroyed on the 18th June 2003
being the same date the matter was for planning meeting.

Email from Magda Pollack dated 20 June 2003 (2 days after the planning meeting at
the ADT) stating that we understand that the answer sheets are no longer available.
We had been told at the planning meeting that the original answer sheets had been
destroyed but we were not told that they were being destroyed that day.

10
It was devastating when we found out they detroyed the original answer sheets as it
confirmed what we believed and that was that they had been manipulated and the
children were being victimised. 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’
We were later told that since the original answer sheets were no longer available and
as such we couldn’t prove the marks were tampered with in the first instance that
they would not investigate any allegations in relation to selective school issues.

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

11
Data file received under FOI dated 17 September 2002

Data file received under FOI dated 16 November 2005

I believe my children’s test marks were manipulated and outcomes changed, and my
children were discriminated against and victimised. I believe this because.
• My daughter was an exceptionally gifted very high achieving student who was
extensively coached for the Selective High School test. She firmly believes
that the marks that she was said to have achieved are incorrect.
• The test marks letter didn’t add up.
• The appeal analysis prepared by Magda Pollack is full of negative biased
personal opinions and incorrect scores.
• The data filed sent by mistake attached to the marks letter shows a change in
scores to a much lower score and this change is not shown on any data file
produced under FOI.
• My children were bullied and harassed whilst trying to check their test marks
and the viewing was as a result unsuccessful.
• Original answer sheets were destroyed whilst part of an FOI application so
that we could not check the accuracy of the marks.
• 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.
• The allegations were not investigated and covered up. We allege a
conspiracy to cover up.
It was very difficult as her older brother was in the same year as her as she had
been accelerated. My daughter couldn’t even feel happy that she was in the end
offered a place as she was so upset for her brother.
Documents produced under FOI regarding my son are alarming. A separate
document has been created for him regarding the process used for him but once
again the Selection Committee did the right thing, and he was put on the offer list
and Magda Pollack accessed the results after the selection Committee met 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
12
in a bubble saying that he is being moved from the offer list (CARo) to the reserve
list as calculation was wrong.

I will also put together what happened to my youngest daughters (also a very highly
gifted, high achieving accelerated student) applications for OC and Selective schools
(years later) as she was also unsuccessful even on appeal. 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 as my older children by the same people – everybody turned a blind eye
preferring to protect the reputation of the Department of Education instead. We have
issues and serious concerns right up to HSC results.
We had requested that our daughter’s application not be permitted to be processed
by anybody who had been involved in our older children’s selective School process
and complaints. We were told that her applications would be processed by
independent persons.

13
This email has not shown who it was addressed to and it is not dated but Magda
gave evidence and Magda orchestrated everything to do with my children.

Email from Neville Keeley to Max Smith attaching the draft briefing and stating that Magda
and Dave have accusations made against them and therefore they do not appear as part of
the sign off.

14
We also applied for my youngest son but of course we knew exactly what was going
to happen and it did.
Year after year we have made serious allegations of a conspiracy to cover up the
allegations which are also set out separately with evidence. We know of other
students who have been dealt with the same way.

15