阴谋论？不知哪位高手能翻译一下来给那些焦虑的父母们

waterjuice

一个偶然的机会，我找到这篇文章。不知哪位高手能翻译一下来给那些焦虑的父母们

AFTER HOURS WITH MAGDA POLLAK LEADER NSW SELECTIVE SCHOOLS UNIT

On 11 November 2008 my family received some documents under FOI that the DET have been avoiding giving us for years.  The majority of the documents have been uploaded on the Overview of processes for Selective school placement to your right.  



For 8 years my family have been making allegations of systematic bias, bullying, vilification, victimization and manipulation and tampering of school applications, test marks and state records by the Selective Schools Unit and the DET and in particular Magda Pollak that have involved all our four children Danny, Katie, Amanda and John and that commenced in the Year 2000 after I made some complaints about the neglect of my children's education and has continued to date.  Our formal allegations also include a conspiracy to cover up.



As well as documents produced under FOI from 2002 to date consistantly show evidence of bias, manipulation and misconduct at the moment the situation is as follows:  



    * On 18 July 2003 the original test answer sheets for Selective High School placement for Danny & Katie were destroyed.  They were destroyed despite the fact that we specifically requested that they be set aside and produced under FOI.  We wanted access to the original answer sheet so as to verify the test marks as the marks did not correspond with the children's usual very high performance and were such that they had to be seen to be believed.  The original documents were destroyed on the day the matter was for planning meeting at the ADT despite both ACER and the DET knowing that we had formally requested the original of the documents to be produced under FOI so as to verify test marks. This is in breach of the State Record Keeping Act and the FOI Act and could be interpreted as an attempt to ‘cover up.
    *
    * Documents provided yesterday under FOI headed Minimum Entry scores for OC 2000 to 2007 confirm that the score that Danny and Katie obtained for Year 5 Opportunity Class (203.46, Danny - 2000/01 and 208.14 Katie 2001/2002) were above the minimum entry score shown in the schedule produced under FOI for Caringbah North Public School.  Despite Danny being advised of a Maths mark that was unbelievable (25%) and Katie being advised of an English Mark that was unbelievable (45%), both tests in areas where the children were extremely gifted, the other scores were still high enough that their end profile score was enough to get them a place with Katie's GAT score in the test confirming her IQ was above 160 and Danny's GAT mark confirming his IQ was at 150.   These scores should have resulted in an offer of a place; this is confirmed in the List and Reports where it shows that the outcome for the student was an offer.  However both Danny & Katie were both advised that they were unsuccessful for first round offers, and they lost their appeals.  We asked to see Danny and Katie's original tests papers as the kids wanted to check the marks, however the originals answer sheets were destroyed whilst part of an FOI application being put before the Adminstrative Decisions tribunal.  When we were shown a "so called" certified true and accurate copies of our childrens answers and results there were too many answers to the amount of multiple choice questions.   When the kids attended the DET as our kids  wanted to see the tests and they could only get access in a supervised environment  we were bullied, intimidated and harrassed until we left in tears unable to check.  When we complained to the Minister we were ignored.

    * In relation to Selective High School placement for Year 7 on a data file printed on 4/9/02, that was accidentally sent to us stuck by a paper clip to a letter dated 10 September 2002, a letter advising of Selective High School test marks that did not add up for both Danny and Katie, the entry in relation to the recommended profile score awarded by the Selection Committee on 8/8/02 is shown to be different to the entry present on the data file produced under FOI in November 2002 and November 2005.  There are also entries entered on this data file by Magda Pollak that change Katie's score from 232.19 to 214.26 under the guise of an error in calculation. These entries do not appear on any of the data files produced under FOI.

    * On Katie’s data file printed on 17/9/02, received under FOI in November 2002, the score awarded by St George Girls Selection Committee was logged in an entry by EG on 8/8/02  at 15:11 as follows:  SGG SC : Recommend 1/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT = 232.19.  This score is confirmed in the Selection Committee Register and signed off and confirmed by more than one selection committee member.

NOTE:  Magda Pollak indicated, and it is set out in the transcript of evidence from the ADT in December 2005  that Elizabeth Gonzales, the person who was heading the Selection Committee meeting for St George Girls High and who calculated the scores for Katie was a junior and inexperienced and didn’t know ‘the right’ way to add up the scores and that she included 1/3 I/Q and 2/3 of the (PS) Profile score by mistake and that later Magda noticed this as she checked a few of these calculations and as a result changed the score to the lower score.   

Magda has also indicated in evidence that the entries regarding the changing of the score to the lower score were deleted by her “because there was no space and it was over – finished!”



Magda Pollak also originally indicated on numerous occasions to the Minister, the Ombudsman and to others  that Danny’s score was calculated correctly using a calculation of 1/3 IQ and 2/3 GAT.



    * However recently in the documents provided by Magda Pollak explaining the calculation of the different scores shown in the data files, Magda Pollak produced a document that states that Danny’s score was also initially calculated incorrectly and in the same wrong way as Katie’s and that is why two calculations are shown as his score?.   This second so called ‘incorrect’ calculation was made on a different day at a different Selection Committee meeting by a different person for a different school?  

    * This seriously challenges what Magda has previously said and it begs the question, is the Selective Schools Unit really using inexperienced persons who do not know how to add up the scores to conduct and head Selection Committee meetings and why did two separate Selection Committee members on different days add the scores up exactly the same way initially and presented higher scores and why were they both then changed to lower scores after the event?  We understand that Magda said that Elizabeth Gonzales was a junior and that is why she made the mistake but we know that CY, the person noted in Danny’s data file as having entered the score, is a senior member of the DET by the name of Cynthia Wearne and we question whether she too would have made the same mistake?

NOTE:  In evidence at the ADT Magda Pollak  indicated that there were different ways that the IQ tests could be incorporated and that school and tests marks could be included or excluded or IQ tests results used at the discretion of the Selection Committee.



In the documents provided by in FOI -07-384  at  “Annexure E – page 4”,  in relation to Danny's Selective Schools application, it shows Danny as having been awarded by the Selection Committee as score of 213.33 and that this score meant he was successful for placement for Caringbah High School (CARo)  and then a handwritten entry says "see Magda" - moved to reserve list because calculation was wrong!



It appears clearly from the documents that Magda Pollak changed both Katie and Danny’s Selective  High School scores under the guise of an error in calculation to lower scores after the Selection Committees had met and made their decisions.  These lower scores meant that they were not successful for a place in their chosen school.

Of course when my youngest daughter Amanda applied for Opportunity Class in 2004/05 and then Selective High School placement in 2006/07 it happened again.   Once again Magda Pollak was permitted to 'deal with' my families applications despite formal requests that she not be permitted to have anything to do with the applications as their had been formal allegations made against her that we alleged were part of a conspiracy to cover up.  Once again documents produced under FOI show evidence of bias and misconduct.

Then when my youngest son applied for Opportunity Class in 2007/08 it happened again.

One discrepancy can be an accident, twice coincidence, any more times...its corruption.

Is it a co-incidence that Magda Pollak, the same person in the Selective Schools Unit, has been involved time and time again with these types of complaints and issues to do with my family?   Surely it is of serious concern given what continuously presents in the documents that formal allegations of bias and misconduct have been continuously made against this person and have been ignored?



There are so many discrepancies and issues over and above what is listed above in the documents and in relation to the handling of our complaints that need to be clarified and that seriously implicate the DET and in particular Magda Pollak.   I have evidence/documents to support every single thing that I say.  At every stage of this matter our family as been denied procedural fairness and natural justice and impartial and unbiased decisions.



I cannot understand why so many people would allow a person like Magda Pollak who is engaging in behaviour that is curel and criminal to continue to head the Selective Schools Unit.    Magda Pollak appears to have a lot of friends in the system who are quite content to turn a blind eye.



I have two children who have just completed their HSC and because of the failure of the DET to deal with this matter and as a result of the DET having prepared and presented a ‘story’ about my children year after year that involved manipulating with their marks and scores we are seriously worried about the kids scores in the HSC.  



I realize that nobody is required to care about my children but I ask you to consider that we know of at least 2 other families who were dealt with the same way by Magda Pollak and one can only image how many more there could be given that she has been given the power to play god without question or challenge.



I am at present updating the "Overview of processes for Selective School Placement" - top right.  I will be uploading the relvant documents as soon as possible as my 'uploading assistant' is busy on her HSC vacation.[/quote/]
[quote]http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/2008/11/magda-pollak.html

[ 本帖最后由 waterjuice 于 2010-5-31 13:25 编辑 ]

patrickzhu

大概看了一下，这是一个倒霉的家庭对于州教育部和精英中学招生委员会，特别是其负责人Magda Pollak的控诉。

我看的不是很清楚，大意是：

这个家庭有四个孩子，大儿子和大女儿是爱因斯坦型的天才儿童，因为他们的智商有160和150，但是他们都没有考入精英中学，原因是精英中学招生委员会错误地计算了这两个孩子的最后总分，应该是以智商1/3和总分2/3来计入（因为他们的IQ很高），但是因为操作人员是个Junior，结果导致他们俩总分不达标而落选，而作为精英中学招生委员会的负责人Magda Pollak一直企图掩盖事实，包括销毁了当时试卷答案纸的原件，后来就成了无头悬案。。。
几年以后，这个家庭里的小儿子小女儿在考OC的时候，再次受到相似的情况，而招生负责人还是这个Magda Pollak。照例来说，这个人因为在上次同一家庭的case里有了争议，在后来同一家庭的争议里应该回避，但是后来的case还是由Magda Pollak负责。。。导致了再次的不幸事件。。。

现在大儿子大女儿面临着HSC，这个家庭再次担心。。。

缓缓

第一次读到这么黑暗的丑闻。这种故事，让焦虑的父母更焦虑了

HSC 和 OC/SELECTIVE COMMITTEE 不是一个机构吧。不过，保不齐也有同类事件发生。

这世道！

chermside

第一次知道考精英中学的时候，如果是IQ很高的孩子，智商的分数也计算在内的。真的吗？

缓缓

我听说，IQ 不是计算在内，但是如果孩子临场发挥失常导致分数不过线，可以凭IQ 测试 申请review还是啥的。

粉猪妈妈

这倒是新鲜事。。每个家长都觉得自己孩子聪明，但是真的去做智商测验的倒不多。。

真第一次听说智商可以是OC的评分项目

chatchat

粗看了下网站，疑问还是蛮多的，不过，那个他们提到的人的确至少应该回避。

patrickzhu

原帖由 chatchat 于 2010-6-1 11:30 发表
粗看了下网站，疑问还是蛮多的，不过，那个他们提到的人的确至少应该回避。

当然，这是这个家长的声诉，到底细节如何我们是搞不清了，但是的确是个很大的争议。。。
从里面可以告诉我们如下事实：

- 有正规机构认可的IQ鉴定，肯定是可以在OC/Selective High入学招生流程中被特别考虑。
- 被特别考虑的因素就是加分，IQ的值以某种方式计入最后的总分。
- 但是因为被特别考虑，所以人为的因素有时就变成了决定性的了，其中肯定有很多不公开的秘密。

结论是，要考OC和Selective High，Placement Test考的好是决定性的（学校评分其实也是和Test成绩有极大的关联），其他都不可靠。。。

海之女

要进OC和Selective High，谁会考试谁就是赢家。IQ高有屁用。
所以补课是成功之路。

华人最擅长的就是补课考高分，OC和Selective High通吃。哈哈哈哈！

缓缓

既然智商高，那就是金子，是钻石。。。到哪里都闪光。不去精英怕啥，还有奖学金等着。再说，精英不代表成功，地球人都知道。

海之女

原帖由 D妈妈 于 2010-6-2 15:39 发表
既然智商高，那就是金子，是钻石。。。到哪里都闪光。不去精英怕啥，还有奖学金等着。再说，精英不代表成功，地球人都知道。

同意D妈妈的意见。尤其是“精英不代表成功，地球人都知道。”这句精辟。