Jolanda & Peter Challita

42 Carramar Crescent
MIRANDA NSW 2228

PH: 9501 1072

DGS 07/1430
31 August 2007

Mr Michael Coutts-Trotter
Director-General of Education & Training
FAX: 9561 8465

Dear Mr Coutts-Trotter

I refer to your letter dated 29 August 2007 addressed to Mr & Mrs Chillita and would
reply as follows.

Paragraph 1:

I appreciate you taking the time to see my family but I have serious concerns as set out
below.

Paragraph 2.

In your letter you state that you entered the meeting with an open mind because you
didn’t want your views to be influenced by any of the past history.

But during the initial stage of the meeting you stressed that our allegations had impacted
on the health of certain members of your staff. And you advised us that a member of
staff was “hanging on by a thread”.

So it would seem that your “fresh view” of our complaint had, in fact, already been
influenced by the comments of at least one member of your staff

Paragraph 3:

The Responding to Suggestions and Complaints Policy and your Child Protection Policy
requires that serious allegations of this nature be subjected to more than just ‘being
heard’. Policy and procedure requires that these types of allegations be dealt with under
the formal investigations procedure. The Department has breached Government Policy
in dealing with my family’s allegations and complaints.

In your letter you also state that we have had our concerns considered by the Ombudsman
and the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

1
However neither the Department of Education nor the Ombudsman have investigated the
original allegations or any subsequent complaints or allegations involving any of our
children. In a letter from the Ombudsman dated 16 March 2007 a copy of which was
provided to you it says:

“I enclose for your information a copy of the letter sent by the Minister. As you know,
the reference in the letter to the Ombudsman having previously investigated the matter
is not correct as the matters you have raised were not made the subject of an
investigation under the Ombudsman’s Act”.

There are still matters outstanding at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT)
including fresh applications relating to different issues in relation to the Departments
failure to honour agreements, failure to produce documents, the destruction of documents
and the refusal to produce documents in relation to this matter.

Paragraph 4:

I lodged a completed Opportunity Class application with the school by hand in May
under cover of a letter dated 28 May 2005 with a request that ‘the application’ be sent to
you and not the Selective Schools Unit (SSU) for processing and lodgment. My letter
started with the following paragraph:

“I enclose herewith an application for placement into Opportunity Class for John
Challita. I also enclose herewith a Suggestion or Complaint form in relation to the
application”. Our letter included the following:

“I request that this ‘application’ be forwarded personally and directly to the

Director General Mr. Michael-Coutts Trotter”.

I will be happy to provide a Statutory Declaration to state that I lodged the Application at
the school as required.

Paragraph 5:

I don’t think you do understand as if you did you wouldn’t be responding the way that
you are.

It is also a fact that our allegations are not just that the tests were manipulated in the first
instance. Our allegations are that the process was biased, flawed and manipulated at
every individual and separate stage of the process. I set out hereunder some examples of
individual instances as follows; we have an alarming amount of further examples and
documentary support if you wish to see them I will be happy to attend your office to
show you:

2
1. TEST MARKS

In 2003 the Department of Education sent us what they said were certified true and
accurate copies of our children’s test results that showed errors and inconsistencies. We
requested access under FOI to the original answer sheets, so as to verify the answers and
marks. The DET destroyed the original answer sheets so that we could not verify the
results despite these documents being specifically requested to be set aside under FOI.
At the time the matter was being put before the ADT for determination.

2. SELECTION COMMITEES

The Selection Committees in relation to my daughter’s application for Selective High

School placement met on 5/8/02 and 8/8/02. The St George Selection Committee
decided to incorporate my daughters IQ score into the Profile score.

Magda Pollack accessed the data file on 12 August 2002; four days AFTER the Selection
Committees had made their decision and changed the score under the guise of an error in
calculation from 232.19 to 214.26. This lower score was then presented to the Appeals
panel on which to base their decision together with biased personal opinions and
misrepresentations of facts. See appeal analysis dated 5 October 2002.

A copy of the data file produced under FOI in November 2002 and December 2005 show
232.19 as the calculation of the Profile score – see attached. The entries in relation to the
lowering of the score to 214.26 were deleted from the data file and did not form part of
the information produced under FOI. The data file dated 4 September 2002 showing the
changing of the scores was sent to us accidentally, it was stuck by a paper clip to the
letter advising of our children’s marks and dated 10 September – see attached.

The IQ equivalent chart that the ADT ordered to be produced under FOI in April 2006
clearly shows that the re-calculation of the score from 232.19 to 214.19 was incorrect and
an incorrect lower score was presented to the Appeals panel together with a
misrepresentation of facts in order to base their decision. The process was manipulated
and flawed. I would be happy to attend your office to show you that we are telling the
truth and we have the evidence to support our allegations.

3.APPEALS PANELS - 2007

At the outset of this matter in relation to my daughters Application for Selective School
placement for 2007 a formal request was made that Magda Pollack not be involved in the
preparation or the processing of my daughters Application for a Selective High School
placement for 2007 as we had made serious formal allegations of bias, neglect,
victimization, misconduct and manipulation of test scores and documents against her that
had not been investigated or addressed and that we alleged were part of a conspiracy to
cover up.

In a letter from the Department of Education to me dated 27 June 2006 said to be from
Gillian Shadwick it states the following:

3
‘As you have lodged a formal complaint against the Manager of the Selective High
School and Opportunity Class placement unit, the manager has voluntarily removed
herself from the processing of any aspect of your daughters application’.

In documents produced under FOI the following emails were produced – see attached

Email from Lee Raynor, Senior Legal Officer, Legal Services Directorate to Leader of
the Selective Schools Unit - Magda Pollak. 13 June 2006 - 9:48 am.

Morning,

I hope your week-end wasn't as bad as you thought it was going to be. I
received a copy of correspondence that Christa Ludlow forwarded to Mrs
Challita's solicitor which provided the documentation from your unit and
apologised for the delay and saying the delay was caused by an oversight in
the Crown Solicitors Office. So now Christa will be part of the conspiracy.

Christa wanted me to thank you so very much for your patience and
tolerance as a witness in this matter. I want to also thank you for your
professionalism in the face of great adversity. Let me know when you want
me to look at the letter you are drafting to Mrs Challita about Amanda's
application.

Email from Magda Pollak to Lee Raynor Senior Legal Officer, Legal Services
Directorate. Tuesday 13 June 2006 - 10:05 am

How very kind of you both!

Here are my efforts over the long weekend. I’ve put Christa down for Let me
know what you think.

Email from Magda Pollak to Lee Raynor, Senior Legal Officer, Legal Services
Directorate. Tuesday 13 June 2006 11:22 am

I was interrupted. I meant to say that I have put Christa down for
consultation too but if you don’t think she needs to be involved we can remove
her name

Email from Lee Raynor, Legal Services Directorate to Magda Pollak.

Tuesday 13 June 2006 01:34 pm.

Christa is still in her current job and if she has time to look at it I think
anything she would advise is worth considering. I will try to look at the draft
later today.

4
We requested in writing that the Leader of the Selective Schools Unit, Magda Pollak,
have nothing to do with my daughter’s 2007 application. We were told in writing
that Magda Pollak had removed herself from processing of the application and yet she
is clearly shown in the email as being involved in discussions with the Senior Legal
Officer of the Legal Services Directorate about my daughter’s matters, and she is
drafting the outcome letter setting out the outcome of my daughters Selective High
School application during a long weekend from home – attached and dated 27 June
2007 is my daughters outcome letter. It should also be noted that I never requested a
change of choice for my daughter as stated in the letter dated 27 June 2007 and I
would be happy to file a Statutory Declaration stating this.

We are alleging a conspiracy to cover up and we believe that the information

provided to you is not from an impartial and unbiased source.

Given the ‘history’ detailed above, we do not believe that having somebody just sit
with my son on the day of the test is sufficient and that if my son is forced to sit the
test to apply to have his needs met, we formally request that an independent person
chosen by us should not only be permitted to observe on the day of test and check the
process of marking of the test, but they should also sit in on the scaling and
moderating of the marks and scores and to observe the Selection Committee meetings
and Appeals panels to ensure that the correct scores are calculated and produced and
the correct information is presented and the application is dealt with fairly and
without bias.

I would also further request that any persons with a conflict of interest/duties in this
matter be excluded from taking part in the Selection Committee and the Appeals
panel as in previous Applications there have been voting members of the Selection
Committees and the Appeals panel who had allegations made against them and/or
were actively involved in this complaint/matter. This clearly is wrong, as they sign a
declaration that there is no conflict of duties.

Last paragraph:

I can see that we have a different perspective, and that we are looking at different
documentation and information. It appears to us that your loyalty and concern is to
protect Government employees and the reputation of the Labor Government and not
the children.

You will no doubt appreciate that these are our children and what is being done to
them is wrong, it is illegal and immoral and has, and is, significantly impacting on
their education, their reputation, their mental health and physical well-being. It has
also caused considerable harm to my families reputation and caused emotional and
psychological damage and financial hardship.

It is not reasonable, fair or right to expect people, including children, who have been
treated in this unfair, unjust and unlawful manner by employees of the Government to
just move on and let it go without any attempt to reach a satisfactory resolution so as

5
to repair some of the damage and achieve some sort of closure and to hold those who
are breaching Policy and failing in their duty of care to account.

There are people in positions of power employed by the Department of Education

who are abusing their power and they need to be stopped.

Should the Department fail to properly and fairly deal these complaints/allegations
then my husband and I will have no alternative but to continue do everything in our
power to have these allegations investigated by exposing the matter to the public and
seeking Justice through the Courts.

Our children expect us to stand up against the bullies and to protect them from those
who wish to do them harm as to do otherwise would be to fail in our duty of care as
parents.

In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald headed Lessons in Choice

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/lessons-in-
choice/2007/07/29/1185647743489.html?page=5 Magda Pollak was quoted as
saying:

“extremely bright students benefit greatly from learning together. "One of the myths
is that the bright kids will make it in any environment, when the research shows these
are the very kids who will drop out and get clinically depressed and have all sorts of
difficulties if they aren't in a group with their intellectual and emotional peers”.

What would be in the best interest of the children is for the Department to abide by
their own Policies and procedures and investigate the allegations properly and fairly.

In the Department of Educations website in the Policy Section headed the Code of
Conduct https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/staff/ethical_behav/conduct/conduct.pdf it
states as follows:

Fairness and equity:

18.1 Decisions involving individuals should be made on the basis of factual

information. Decisions should be made in accordance with established procedures,
fairly (that is without bias based on personal or other grounds), with honesty and
integrity, objectively and in conformity with the principles of procedural fairness
(including the right to be heard and the right to an impartial decision). The principle of
procedural fairness is also known as natural justice.

I await hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Jolanda & Peter Challita

6
7