How your Education Queensland "official records" can be extensively falsified.
And how decisions concerning you can be based on these falsified "records".
An abusive school principal can "edit" the documents on your official file to "pay you back" for trying to deal with real problems at his or her school.
Your efforts to deal with the real problems will be edited out of the official records.
The official records will create the impression that the problems began with you.
Your "official record" can be falsified in various ways-
The real-life experiences on which these conclusions are based:
In Term 4 2000 Mr EL, the usual principal of Lynch-Mob State School, was on leave.
On 13 October 2000, the tenth day that she was acting principal of Lynch Mob State School, acting principal Mrs GR seems to have began collecting falsified "records" concerning me.
And she put her falsified "records" secretly on my Education Queensland "official records", in breach of Natural Justice, the Education Queensland Code of Conduct and the Public Service Regulations.
On 9 October, the sixth day that she was acting principal, Mrs GR, who had not looked at my program or been into my classroom all year, claims - in her falsified "records" - that she rang the District Office and began boasting to the staff of the District office that she wanted to put me on Diminished Work Performance.
You would expect that alarm bells would have immediately rung out throughout the District office, and that the District Office staff would have sprung into action to protect me from Mrs GR's obvious inexperience.
But no!
The District Office staff did nothing to protect me from acting principal Mrs GR.
You might think that this was disgraceful negligence.
I certainly do.
This is my story:
This was the second day of Term 4, 2000.
And the second day that Mrs GR was acting principal of Lynch-Mob State School.
At about 3:10 PM, I took Mother DA to acting principal Mrs GR's office, because I was worried by Mother DA's violent and abusive manner towards me.
Mother DA thought that I had put her son, Grade 7 NT student RDA on detention.
It had not happened.
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 54-55 - numbers on top right hand corner of document.
This seems to be a true copy of a yellow “Student misbehaviour slip" that I filled out at 3:00 PM that afternoon and handed to Mrs GR as I took Mother DA into Mrs G's office.
The "yellow slip" is dated 3/10/00. This is not correct. It should have been dated 4/10/00.
Really I should not have used a "yellow slip" because I was not really reporting student RDA's misbehaviour.
I just wanted to to inform acting principal Mrs GR that there might be a problem with student RDA's mother, because I knew that Mother DA had been very upset earlier in the year.
But there was no form to fill in just to advise the principal of a possible problem with a parent, so I filled in the "yellow slip".
"RDA’s mother was very distressed earlier in the year.
I told RDA 2x to go to the toilet before an excursion.
He did not go and then wanted to go at City Place.
We were just leaving so I told him to go when he got back to school.
Today we were watching a five minute video.
I saw his hand was up and motioned to him to wait till the video was over. …"
I should point out that I had no idea why RDA had his hand up.
I was translating the subtitles in the video and could not stop the video to talk to him.
Children often put their hands up to tell me that they did not understand something in the video, or becuause they wanted to talk about the video, and it was not fair on the rest of the class to stop the video to answer one child's questions.
I only realised that RDA wanted to go to the toilet when I noticed that he was asking his class teacher if he could go to the toilet.
" … he asked his class teacher if he could go to the toilet.
Seeing that there could be another drama, I spoke to him at 3.00pm.
I said:
1. If there is a medical need for his urgent need to go to the toilet he could go any time.
2. He can go at the start of every LOTE (Indonesian) lesson.
3. The best time to go to the toilet is before school and at afternoon tea, etc.
4. Ask when a video is not on, especially one that lasts 5 minutes.
RDA was rude.
I made him repeat what I was saying."
Student RDA did not seem to be listening to me.
He had thought that I was telling him that he could not go to the toilet.
I asked him to repeat back to me what I had said to him because this is a recognised strategy to encourage effective listening.
I use it myself at certain times, for example, when my doctor gives me instructions about how often to take medication.
I was teaching student RDA a useful listening strategy.
Student RDA repeated what I was saying.
If Student RDA had not wanted to repeat what I was saying, he would have refused to do it.
You could not make Student RDA do anything that he did not want to do.
"Mum came in shouting at 3.10.
I advised her that there was a law against abusing a teacher in front of children.
If it happens again I will contact the union."
This is exactly what the QTU had advised us to say in these circumstances.
I began writing this "yellow slip" when I was talking to RDA.
I went to my office to finish writing the "yellow slip"
While I was writing, Mother DA bust into my room shouting that I had put RDA on detention for going to the toilet.
She is a large lady and she was standing behind me, her legs apart, her arms stuck out at her side, and she was shouting at me.
It was a pretty amazing sight.
I tried to explain that I had not put RDA on detention, but Mother DA was too "wound up" to listen".
She was very aggressive and abusive.
I felt that the situation was unsafe- I was alone in my office and the school was closing down.
So I took Mother DA to the office and continued to write the note as we sat in the entrance area, waiting to see acting principal GR.
There is a law against abusing a teacher in front of one of her students.
I did not want to walk through the school with Mother DA shouting at me, so I told Mother DA about this law before we left my office.
As we moved into the outdoor playground area Mrs DA became loud and abusive again, so I pointed to the children sitting about and said, "We are in public."
I told Mrs DA that I would contact the union if she continued to abuse me in public.
She was quiet as we walked through the school.
But, while we waited in the school office to speak to Mrs GR, Mother DA had become loud and abusive again.
When I had finished writing I offered to read the note to Mother DA.
The note made clear that I had been telling Student RDA that he could go to the toilet.
I hoped that listening to what I had written on the note would calm Mrs DA down.
Mother DA said, "Yes, I’d like to hear what you have to say for yourself".
She was very loud and abusive in her manner.
Then acting principal Mrs GR came out and we went into her office.
I gave the "yellow slip" to acting principal Mrs GR.
From memory, Mrs GR did not read the "yellow slip" at that time.
When we went into acting principal Mrs GR's office Mother DA abused me in front of her son and acting principal Mrs GR for about twenty minutes.
For the first ten minutes she abused me for putting Student RDA on detention.
When she eventually realised that this had not happened, Mother DA did not apologise.
She simply "changed tack" and abused me in a more personal manner.
Acting principal Mrs GR did not give me any support.
She passively allowed Mother DA to abuse me.
Acting principal Mrs GR sat turned away from me.
She spat words at me over her shoulder.
She repeatedly told Mrs DA, "I will speak to (my name) about that later."
Mrs GR seemed to imply that I had done something wrong.
A more experienced principal would have suggested to Mother DA that she owed me an apology.
Mrs DA was very aggressive, but the acting principal could have controlled her behaviour.
I had been able to control her behaviour as we walked through the school.
Acting principal Mrs GR could have controlled Mother DA's abuse.
Acting principal Mrs GR simply did not make the effort to control Mother DA's abuse.
I presumed at the time that acting principal Mrs GR was handling the situation poorly because she was so inexperienced.
Or that Mrs GR was afraid to say very much to Mother DA because Mother DA was so behaving so aggressively.
Mother DA repeatedly called me "this woman".
"Look at her body language!" (jeering and pointing at me).
"I don't give a sh*t about Indonesian!"
"I don't give a sh*t if he passes Indonesian or not!"
This was by far the most abusive experience that I had in thirty years of teaching.
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State College documents 9-11- numbers at the top right hand side of the document.
and also -
2469 File F The District Office documents 82-84.
By 27 October 2005 the 2421 Lynch-Mob State College version of this document had vanished from the "official records".
This document is acting principal Mrs GR’s secret record of this meeting with abusive Mother DA.Acting principal Mrs GR's "record" is horribly falsified.
I first realised that this secret "record" existed when it was described in a letter to me dated 23 March 2004 from by Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.
Stephannie did not release this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-
"These (2421 File F) documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with ..."
But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.
I first read this document after 27 April 2004 when it was released to me by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.
I complained that the document was falsified-
On Monday 24 May 2004 at 2:03pm I emailed Keith Hynes.
I copied the email to the CMC (postmaster and complaints) and the Ombudsman.
I attached my response to FOI 2421 F 9-11.
" ... I think this is the last individual document to which I will write an individual response.
Basically the other documents are just more of the same.
If there is another document you would like me to respond to, please advise me.
... In my professional opinion, acting school principal G.R. has a mental health problem."
By 27 October 2005 the 2421 File F documents had all been reversed in order and given new numbers on the bottom of the page. A.
And this document had vanished from the "official records".
The 2421 F 9-11 documents were headed-
"CONFIDENTIAL
RECORD OF INCIDENT BETWEEN (MOTHER D.A.) AND (MY FULL NAME) 04/10/00"
Acting principal Mrs GR has edited her own name out of this heading.
The document is unsigned and undated.
"The problem appeared to be about (me) not allowing (Mother DA)'s son (RDA) to attend the toilet during the LOTE lesson."
This had not happened.
This was not the problem.
Either-
Acting principal Mrs GR wrote this document long after the event and could not remember clearly what happened.
or
Acting principal Mrs GR has deliberately and maliciously "spun" this "record" to my disadvantage.
I had been translating subtitles on an Indonesian video.
I saw that student RDA had put his hand up but I could not attend to him because I was busy reading and translating the subtitles aloud for the class.
I had to concentrate on the screen because the subtitles were changing so quickly.
After the lesson I tried to tell student RDA that he didn't have to ask me if he needed to go to the toilet, especially in the middle of a video.
"She also stated that there was a law against parent (sic) abusing teachers and that she would contact the union solicitor to have a restraining order taken out (against Mother DA)."
" ... to have a restraining order taken out ..."
I did not say this.
I do not know enough about the law to think up these words.
I told Mother DA exactly what the Queensland Teachers' Union had instructed us to say to abusive parents - that I would refer the matter to the union solicitor.
But when we went into acting principal Mrs GR's office Mother DA did complain to acting principal Mrs GR about me telling her that I would refer the matter to the union solicitor.
And, if I remember correctly, Mother DA did not use the same words that I had used.
Mother DA may have herself introduced the idea of a restraining order.
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 54
This is the "yellow slip" that I had written during the incident and handed to acting principal Mrs GR at the time:
"Mum came in shouting at 3:10.
I advised her that there was a law against abusing a teacher in front of children.
If it happens again I will contact the union."
Similarly, in my document "The Incident at City Place", which I gave to acting principal Mrs GR a few days after this incident :
"I did not want to walk right through the school with her screaming abuse.
I said, "You know, there is a law that says you are not allowed to abuse me in front of students.
If you do not stop I am going to contact the union solicitor and ask him to deal with it."
Mrs GR's "record" 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 9-11 seems to me to be a disgracefully falsified record of what took place during that meeting.
Acting principal Mrs GR failed in her duty of care to protect me from this abusive parent.
At the time I presumed that acting principal Mrs GR was overwhelmed and too inexperienced to deal with Mother DA's aggression.
But acting principal Mrs GR's behaviour after the meeting suggested to me that she had deliberately chosen to passively facilitate Mother DA's abuse of me.
Fredom of Information Document 2421 F 9-11 suggests that acting principal Mrs GR then "spun" the situation to do me professional harm.
At no time did Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR demonstrate any concern for my welfare, even though it was obvious that her behaviour, in allowing this parent to subject me to irrational abuse, and then abusing me herself, was affecting my health.
Possibly that evening, certainly very shortly after 4 October:
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 17-19.
2469 File F The District Office documents 75-77.
Acting principal Mrs GR obviously knew very little about student RDA and about what had happened before I had brought his abusive mother to her office.
After abusive Mother DA had left, acting principal Mrs GR had shouted me down, abused me, refused to listen, said she had not time to listen, etc.,
Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR had refused to listen to me.
Just as she had refused to listen to me one year earlier, when she claimed that the teachers' aides were "very upset" that I had asked them to check the photocopying that they were doing for me.
Mrs GR seemed to me to be a person who refused to listen to the facts because she enjoyed the excitement of "beating things up".
So I wrote a document for Mrs GR to explain what had happened before I had brought abusive Mother DA to her office.
This is a true copy of that document.
I explained what had happened on the excursion earlier in the year:
"Before the excursion I met with the children and explained that the toilets at City Place were not very good (strange place, not really suitable for children, dirty, possibly unsavoury characters, drugs, etc.) so it was important to go to the toilet before we went to City Place.
On the day of the excursion I asked each teacher to make sure that their class went to the toilet before leaving the school.
I reminded several groups to go to the toilet."
I described what had happened in the classroom on October 4 2000-
"I showed Grade 7NT a five minute (Indonesian) video with no subtitles.
After we had watched it once, I stopped the video and asked the class some questions about the video.
Then I started the video again.
This time there were subtitles and I was facing the screen translating the subtitles which were passing pretty quickly.
At one point I noticed that student RDA had his hand up.
I pointed to the screen but did not stop translating.
After a moment I noticed RDA asking the class teacher if he could go to the toilet.
I remembered the earlier incident , so at the end of the lesson I asked RDA to stay behind at 3:00 PM.
I told him that if he had a medical reason for going to the toilet he had my permission to go freely at any time, he did not have to put his hand up and wait to get permission.
He began to protest and argue with me and I suspected that he had not attended to what I had said.
I asked him to tell back to me what I had said to him.
He had not been attending and had thought that I had said he could not go to the toilet.
I realised that he was too emotional to be thinking logically so I asked him to listen again and repeat what I said after me.
I understood this to be a common technique to encourage listening as opposed to self-listening."
“Has RDA’s mother subjected her son to a form of toilet training that is going to be a problem to him throughout his life?
She has trained him to refuse to go to the toilet at break times or when asked to go.
She has trained him only to go to the toilet when he feels “the need”.
She has taught him that if he delays at all when he feels “the need” he might die.
… Do we have any responsibility to offer help to RDA?”
Acting principal Mrs GR was supposed to be my supervisor in the year 2000, but she had not been into my classroom or looked at my program all year.
She had showed no interest in my work.
But in document 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State school document 9, acting principal Mrs GR claims that on the day after she had allowed the aggressive mother to abuse me, she gossipped about me with -
Acting principal Mrs GR actually claims that on the third day of Term 4 she had -
"... further discussions with Miss AL ..."
So it seems that this was not the first time that Mrs GR had gossiped about me with Miss AL.
You might suspect that Mrs GR was grooming Miss AL to attack me.
You might also suspect that Mrs GR had chosen Miss LA to be acting deputy principal because she was inexperienced and easily manipulated.
"... further discussions with Miss AL (acting deputy principal) the next day ..."
i.e. on October 5, 2000, the third day that Miss AL was acting deputy principal and that Mrs GR herself was acting principal.
"... over concerns she (Miss AL) had ..."
This seems to be an example of "Mrs GR's waggle the puppet" strategy.
"Waggle the puppet" seems to have been Mrs GR's most frequently used strategy.
Mrs GR seems to have put words that are damaging to me into the mouths of vulnerable / easily manipulated people.
Many, many times those people have reported to me, to the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity trained "Discrimination Solicitor" and to Infocomm Officers that that they did not have these conversations.
"... over concerns she (Miss AL) had ... regarding-
Three-day-old acting deputy principal Miss AL had never seen me teach.
She had never looked at my program.
Miss AL was actually the reading teacher at Lynch-Mob State College.
During Term 1 and 2 2000, Miss AL had been sitting at the next desk to me in our shared office.
How could acting deputy principal Miss AL possibly have had-
"discussions over concerns she had regarding (my) classroom management" ?
Acting deputy principal Miss AL liked to chat in the mornings.
There was a sound-proof screen between us.
Miss AL would often shout to me over the screen.
Being older, I did not feel comfortable engaging in this sort of shouted conversation.
And my hearing was not very good.
So when Miss AL called out to me, I would get up and walk around the screen so that we could speak to each other face-to-face.
One morning, after she had called out to me three times and I had left my work three times to walk around the screen that separated us, I told Miss AL that I did not have time to chat to her in the morning because I had to prepare for my lessons.
I knew that Miss AL was upset about this, because she never called out to me again in the mornings, but the plain truth was that I had to get my work done.
I just didn't have time to chat to Miss AL in the mornings.
"... her negative relationships ..."
Did acting deputy principal Miss AL support acting principal GR in putting me on DWP because I would not chat to her in the mornings?
Didn't any of the investigators who have, it seems, conducted investigations into these hidden documents, have the common sense to think that this was a ridiculous conversation for an acting principal - who had not looked at my program or been into my classroom all year - and an acting deputy principal to have -
- on their third day in the job?
What negative relationships?
This claim is so ridiculous, it is funny.
Seven teachers who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years totally supported me.
These teachers told Mrs GR and Miss AL very, very clearly that they supported me.
They had a formal meeting with Mrs GR and told her that there was no problem with my "classroom managent practices".
They amazed each other by how firmly and clearly each one of them told Mrs GR that they supported me and that she was making a mistake.
But Mrs GR made no record of their protests.
Mrs GR was not "recording" reality.
My 'relationship' with the Grade 6 children in 1999 had been so good that usual principal Mr EL and the teachers had urged me to teach them in Grade 7 in 2000.
The children's behaviour only became a problem when they moved into the Grade 7 class, just as the Grade 7 children's behaviour had been a problem for their Indonesian teacher the previous year.
My relationship with student RDA (the child with toileting problems) was usually good.
It is true that he abused me on 4 October 2000, but I had seen him abusing Grade 7 teacher LR, his class teacher, in exactly the same manner.
It was the way that he had learned to relate to adults.
Student RDA had talked to me without ceasing on 11 May 2000, when I took him in my car on an excursion to a local Indonesian restaurant.
(The bus had been too small and I had to take three children in my car.)
And he talked all the way back from town as well.
He told me that his friends had teased him because he had talked to me so much.
I have often wondered if he talked to his mother about me, and if she became jealous.
After the excursion I took a special interest in student RDA.
He had talked about being "kept down" a year at school. I decided to give him an opportunity to perform in an Indonesian play at City Place.
I thought that a child like RDA would not have many happy memories of school, and I wanted to give him something that he could remember.
Many parents would have appreciated the opportunity that I had given their child.
But if you take an interest in a child who has problems, sometimes the child's parents also have problems - and they can turn on you in an irrational and abusive manner.
This is always a risk that a teacher takes when they try to do something to support a child like RDA.
I have no record of any other problem with student R.D.A.'s behaviour during the rest of Term 4 2000.
When I first started working at Lynch-Mob State School my relationship with acting principal Mrs GR was terrific.
We were both members of the Labor party and we often used to talk about Labor party related matters at lunch time.
We worked together on the Labor party stand at the local "show" and joked about being the Lynch-Mob State School branch of the Labor party.
Then, towards the end of 1999, I became less enthusiastic about the Labor party.
I met Judy Spence at a fundraising dinner that Mrs GR had organised at the home of the Local Member.
I asked Judy Spence for help with a real estate problem.
Judy Spence told me that it was not her responsibility.
I was very disappointed.
I grumbled about Judy Spence during school lunchtimes.
I had not really enjoyed the fundraising dinner.
My interest in the Labor party had been the opportunity that it provided to get out into the community and help people.
They told me about local problems and I told the Labor party candidate and she got the problems fixed.
At the time it seemed to me to be a community service.
Now that the Local Member had been elected, there was no need for me to do this sort of work.
And I was not interested in socialising with other Labor party members.
I told Mrs GR that I was going to be less involved in the Labor party in future.
Mrs GR suggested to me two, possibly three times that I join her branch of the Labor party.
She told me that the branch meetings were fun.
But I did not join her branch.
And I continued to complain about Judy Spence at lunch times.
There is a possibility that I may have rabbited on about Judy Spence rather too much at lunchtimes.
In early 2000 Mrs GR turned on me very, very aggressively when I was grumbling about Judy Spence during a school lunchtime.
She told me what Judy Spence thought about the situation.
It was almost exactly what Judy Spence had said to me at the dinner.
Mrs GR gave me the impression (possibly incorrect) that she had been gossiping with Judy Spence about me during Labor party functions.
To me, grumbling about the Government at lunchtime seemed to be normal behaviour.
For the acting principal to go and tell the Government Minister what I had been saying about her at lunchtimes seemed to be totally abnormal behaviour.
I was deeply shocked to think that Mrs GR would tell Judy Spence the dopey things that I had been saying about her at lunchtimes.
I was very worried to think that the acting principal seemed to have been gossiping about me to other members of the Labor party during Labor party functions.
So, from that point onwards, I did not discusss politics with Mrs GR at school again.
My relationship with Miss AL was fine till she wanted to chat to me three times one morning.
There was a sound-proof screen between our desks.
I had to keep getting up from my work and walking around the screen so that I could hear Miss AL properly.
Finally I told her that I didn't have time to chat in the mornings because I had to prepare for my classes.
Miss AL was more relaxed and chatty in the mornings because she taught small groups of children in our office and so she did not have to do so much preparation.
My relationship with the child at White-Wash State School who told me that his teacher often hit him must have been one of trust because he (and his class) told me about the abuse.
My relationship with the staff of White-Wash State School was affected when I followed Departmental policy and reported the child's disclosure to the principal.
In particular, I believe that the White-Wash State School staff's attitude towards me was affected by the principal's behaviour towards me during an in-service on child abuse.
I am quite sure that I had an excellent relationship with the children of White-Wash State School.
They gave me a huge welcome when I returned briefly. In 2000 they (and their parents) followed me around their local shopping centre, asking me why I had "left them".
And at least one Lynch-Mob State School parent, M-- R-----, certainly thought that I was a great teacher because she asked if she could write a newspaper article about my work in June 2000.
She told me that there had been lots of articles in the local paper about the Indonesian activities that I had organised for the children, and now she would like to write an article that was more about me.
This newspaper article may have caused some professional jealousy.
You will not find this newspaper article on my Lynch-Mob State School "official record".
Mrs GR was not "recording" reality.
In about 1985, three weeks after I became an Indonesian teacher, I attended an in-service for all of the Language Other Than English teachers in the local area and I was nominated and elected president of the Modern Language Teachers' Association in Far North Queensland.
I held this position for two years.
I was a confident and articulate speaker at that time.
People recognised that immediately and responded positively.
I don't think that I am that sort of person now.
I would not feel safe working for the Queensland Department of Education again.
My confidence in the Queensland Department of Education as rational and reasonable employers has been destroyed.
My confidence in the Queensland Government has been destroyed.
My confidence in the Labor party and the Queensland Teachers' Union has been destroyed.
My concept of my life in Queensland has been destroyed.
At Lynch-Mob State School I demonstrated initiative, calm professionalism and leadership skills.
There was a problem with unsupervised groups of Grade 7 children roaming about the school and disrupting the other classes.
I tried to deal with this problem in a professional manner.
Acting principal Mrs GR and usual principal Mr EL attacked me and destroyed my health and my career because I tried to deal with a problem in a professional manner.
Either-
This record is true, in which case-
Or-
This record is false, in which case-
Surely-
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 7 - number at top right hand corner of page.
and
2469 File F The District Office document 72
By 27 October 2005 the 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents had all been reversed in order and given new numbers at the bottom of the page.
The first twelve 2421 F documents, including the 2421 F 7 copy of this document had all "vanished" from my official record.
This document purports to be acting deputy principal AL's record of a series of incidents with the Grade 6/7 OB class that took place during the first days of Term 4.
I am not totally certain of these dates, because the FOI officers seem to have concealed the dates on the children's documents.
But I am quite sure that it was on October 5 2000 that I met acting deputy principal AL in the playground, because it was the day after I had taken abusive Mother DA to acting principal GR's office.
I had needed Mrs GR's support in dealing with Mother DA's violent and aggressive manner towards me.
I realise now that on Thursday 5 October and Friday 6 October 2000 I was suffering from "Post Traumatic Shock" from the long episode of abuse the previous afternoon, first by student DA, then by Mother DA, and finally by acting principal GR.
I felt that I could not take sick leave on the third day of term, but on Thursday 5 and Friday 6 October 2000 I was wandering about Lynch-Mob State School in a very distracted state and I was often on the verge of tears.
"I also spoke about the strategies that were not working with regards to behaviour management."
This is a "spin". It is true, but it creates the false impression that Miss AL told me that my teaching strategies were not working.
In reality,
I was concerned about Miss AL's handling of students who were sent to her because of their poor behaviour.I had said to Miss AL, "But can't you see that you are rewarding their behaviour?"
This was Miss AL's third day in the job.
She had never seen me teach.
At this time A.L.'s opinions about my own "strategies" could only be based on the stories told to her by two children that I had sent to her because of their poor behaviour.
Was this "record" falsified at a later date, to try to create the impression that Miss A.L. raised "concerns" with me about behaviour management before I asked for a mediated meeting with acting principal Mrs G.R.?
I had sent either student BOJ or BOS , or possibly both of them, to acting deputy principal Miss AL with a yellow slip because of their poor behaviour.
Acting deputy principal Miss AL told me that students BOJ and BOS had told her that they found LOTE (Indonesian) very difficult, etc.
I explained to Miss AL that students BOJ and BOS had a long history of unco-operative behaviour.
I told her that the BOJ and BOS were very manipulative girls.
They were trying to "pull the wool over her eyes" because Miss AL was new to the job.
They really had been naughty.
I asked Miss AL to go back to BOJ and BOS and tell them that she had checked their story with me and that she knew that they were "having her on".
Acting deputy principal Miss AL refused to do this.
Miss AL said that she "did not want to get into all of that too-ing and fro-ing".
She said that she had no way of telling who was telling the truth, me or the children.
No other principal or deputy principal had adopted this sort of attitude to me before.
Once again, I felt that I was being undermined, although I recognised that Miss AL was inexperienced rather than deliberately unco-operative.
I had followed the school behaviour management program and acting deputy principal Miss AL seemed to have simply allowed the children to "get away with it".
This was when I first realised that "Natural Justice" actually meant just writing down any silly excuse given by the children - and not making any efort to check the story.
The Education Queensland Grievance process also seems to work the same way.
It is a really lazy approach to management.
Contrast the way that AL allowed these children "Natural Justice" with the way that she (and acting principal GR and usual principal EL) treated me, a teacher:
On 29 November, when acting principal Mrs GR gave me a letter to advise me that she and Mr EL had decided to put me on Diminished Workplace Performance in 2001, acting deputy principal Miss AL told me,
"We have to do it to you (my name), because you just keep denying it."
Miss AL (and Mrs GR and Mr EL) had not allowed me, a teacher, the Natural Justice that she had allowed the children BOS and BOJ.
On the contrary-
Miss AL told me that I "had to be" punished because I had tried to respond to her (and Mrs GR's) vague allegations.
I had the overwhelming impression that I was dealing with really stupid thinking.
I began to realise that, when I followed the Lynch-Mob State School Behaviour Management Program, giving the children three warnings for poor behaviour and then sending them to the office with a "yellow slip", the children could just give any silly excuse - and they could say anything that they liked to Miss AL about me - and their lies would be copied down without question.
No effort was going to be made to check that their story was true.
I said to Miss AL, "But can't you see that you are rewarding their behaviour?"
I had seen children that I had sent to the office striding confidently back to their classroom, calling out to their classmates, "Nothing much!".
I felt very depressed about this situation.
At some stage in this conversation I began to cry.
I told acting deputy principal Miss AL that I was feeling unwell.
I told her about the abusive episode the day before.
I told her that it was not Mother DA's abuse that had upset me, it was the way that acting principal Mrs GR had behaved after Mother DA had left the office.
I knew that a problem with Mrs GR was a bit much for Miss AL to deal with on her third day "in the job", so I told Miss AL that I would have a meeting with acting principal Mrs GR and speak to her myself about her behaviour.
Maybe later on 5th October, or in the next few days, certainly well before the meeting on the 12th October:
When students BOJ and BOS next misbehaved I was at a loss to know what to do.
If I sent them to acting principal GR, she would abuse me again.
If I sent them to acting deputy principal AL, she would simply accept their excuses and their lies about me.
I turned my face to the blackboard, leaned against the blackboard and I cried.
I did that a few times.
How could I prove to AL that students BOJ and BOS were really misbehaving?
I tried to teach the other children but BOJ and BOS got louder and louder.
I decided to ask the rest of the class to make a list of the four children who had most disrupted the class.
I thought that acting deputy principal AL would believe the children, even if she would not believe me.
To my horror I found that almost all of the children said that they had noticed nothing.
This was a class of "nice" children from "good" families.
I was really shocked by the children's lies.
Only one child told the truth.
I showed AL the children's statements and told her how disturbing I found them.
I asked her-
Were we teaching the students to lie?
There was no wonder that the specialist teachers were getting no support if the children were so ready to lie.
AL took the statements. I presumed that she would "follow up" but I heard no more about any action that was taken on this issue.
Now I realise that AL simply gave the statements to GR to put on my official records.
Document 2421 F 7 is quite a confused "record" of events.
Acting deputy principal Miss AL seems to have jumbled all of these events together, which suggests to me that this "record" was actually falsified at a later date.
"On the 5th of October students BOJO, BOT, BOJ and BOS where (sic) sent to the office for disruptive classroom behaviour."
This is not correct.
I handed the student's responses to acting deputy principal Miss Al and told her how shocked I was that almost all of the children in the class had lied.
One child had told the truth (BOJO the first child listed, from memory).
"... (See attached student documents) ..."
The folder of statements by children was not attached to this document, so I did not realise when I received this document after 27 April 2004 that the children's "records" had been falsified - student BOJO had been honest about the misbehaviour, and her statement is missing.
I also suspect that the 2421 F 7 record of the conversation with the four children is falsified, because if acting deputy principal Miss AL had really spoken to the children, BOJO would not have made excuses.
It would have been obvious to Miss AL that the children had misbehaved.
"I responded that without the students being offered a consequence for their behaviour I couldn't really enforce a consequence other than to talk to them."
Acting deputy principal Miss AL did not say this.
I have no idea what Miss AL is trying to say with these words.
"(I) agreed to this."
Perhaps Miss AL said that she would talk to the children and I thanked her.
"I spoke with the children. ... they talked about the concerns they had with the way the teacher did not respect them."
Mrs GR and Miss AL did not know the children very well.
This was the basic problem.
BOS and BOJ were naughty, manipulative children.
They showed little resect for me, for the other specialists and for casual teachers.
Miss AL became more aware of this later in Term 4 2000.
"A meeting has been set down for the 16th October, pupil free day, to discuss better strategies for specialist teachers."
If this document existed during Term 4 2000, and if the usual principal Mr EL had seen this document during Term 4 2000, he would immediately have known that acting deputy principal Miss AL had misunderstood the reason for this meeting.
During Term 3 2000 the specialist teachers had been discussing the Grade 7 behaviour problems with usual principal Mr EL.
We had discussed with him a system of recording the behaviour of children in Grades 6 and 7 during specialist lessons.
We had developed the idea further during the first weeks of Term 4 2000, and we discussed it with usual principal Mr EL when he came to visit the school during one lunchtime.
Usual principal Mr EL had suggested to us that we organise a meeting and discuss the behaviour-recording strategy, and the consequences for poor behaviour, with the Grade 6 and 7 teachers.
But I doubt that this document existed in this form in 2000.
This sentence in particular seems to have been "spun" to conceal the fact that dealing with the Grade 7 behaviour problems was an initiative led by the specialist teachers.
This confused document seems to have been written after 25/01/2001, when usual principal E.L. asked me to provide him with a "Time Line" of events during Term 4 2000.
If the falsified "records" had been written before that date, why did Mr EL need a "Time Line"?
This suggests to me that acting principal Mrs GR and acting deputy principal Miss AL may have needed the information on my "Time Line" in order to be able to create their falsified records.
Which would explain why the falsified records were not shown to me or discussed with me during 2000.
2469 File F The District Office document 72
This copy of the document has been changed.
Acting principal Mrs GR seems to have hand-written an unsigned and undated message for usual principal Mr EL on the bottom of this document:
"Confidential request made to (Grade 7 teacher NT) to act as 'supportive colleague' to (me) to try to give her some positive B.M. strategies.
(Grade 7 teacher NT) agreed to try to do this."
In writing this unsigned and undated note on this document dated 13 October 2000, acting principal Mrs GR creates the impression that this confidential request was made to Grade 7 teacher NT on 13 October 2000.
The statement cannot be said to be a lie, because the note is unsigned and undated.
A copy of this hidden / falsified document 2421 F 7 was released to me for the first time after 27 April 2004.
On 19 May 2004 I emailed my response to 2421 F 7 to Keith Hynes, Education Queensland.
I copied my response to 2421 F 7 to the postmaster and complaints CMC and to the Ombudsman.
On 21 June 2004 I wrote to Ken Smith.
I copied the letter to the CMC and the Ombudsman.
I attached a letter to Ken Smith, my response to 2421 F 7 and my response to four other falsified documents.
I understand that this letter was simply "lost".
On 22 June 2004 12:45 PM I hand-delivered a printed copy of my letter to Ken Smith, my response to 2421 F 7 and my response to four of the other falsified documents to the front desk of the District Office.
3:37 PM I emailed Ken Smith to advise him that I had handed a printed copy of my letter and the five responses to falsified documents to the District office.
I told him the name of the person to whom I had handed the documents.
I understand that this printed copy of my letter and the five documents were also "lost".
Mrs GR had refused to listen to me after the meeting with the abusive mother.
She said she did not have time to listen to me.
But she said that we needed to have another meeting to "analyse" the meeting with abusive Mother DA.
I knew that Mrs GR was a very poor listener, so I wrote a document describing what had happened in my classroom before I brought the abusive mother to Mrs GR's office.
And then I asked acting principal GR if we could have a meeting.
Acting principal GR did not seem to be so keen to have this meeting after she had read the document that I had written to explain what had happened in the classroom before abusive Mother DA and I arrived at the office.
I prepared the following notes for this meeting:
"1. Confrontation or support? Which would have been the best approach?"
After the abusive mother had left, acting principal Mrs GR "
... began by saying that I should not have asked the child to repeat what I said after me.This is exactly what the abusive mother herself did - jump into criticism without asking the important questions to find out the facts.
So after trying to calm student D.A. and then enduring her abuse, I then had to deal with yours.
Why?
The same thing happened with the teachers' aides last year. ...
The mother abused me over an extended period of time.
I behaved calmly and did not engage in argument or abuse in return.
When we were alone I said I thought she was so thick ...
You interrupted me and said you strongly objected to that word.
Yet you had allowed her to abuse me.
You said my use of that word made you think maybe I had been rude to her earlier.
This implied that I am a liar.
You had just seen me behave calmly and with courtesy in the face of prolonged abuse. ..."
(The Department of Education have a copy of my notes - 2606 File F Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, documents 285-286)
But acting principal Mrs GR insisted on speaking first.
She said that she had something to say that might change what I was going to say.
(So Mrs GR knew that I was going to protest about her behaviour!)
One of Lynch-Mob State College acting princiipal Mrs GR's regular strategies was to insist on speaking first at a meeting and then entirely change her story.
This was really disconcerting.
Talking to Mrs GR was like trying to find your balance on quicksand.
She was continually changing her "story".
Mrs GR said that I had done exactly the right thing in dealing with abusive Mother DA.
Mrs GR had entirely changed her "angle" on the situation, with no warning, explanation or apology.
I said, "But that wasn't what you said at the time, was it, Mrs GR?"
I described the abuse that I had endured from the child, the mother and finally from acting principal Mrs GR herself.
Mrs GR had accused me of lying.
She had said that she thought that I might have been rude to the mother before we arrived at the office.
Yet Mrs GR had just observed me behaving calmly while the mother abused me for an extended period of time!
Acting principal Mrs GR said that this was not what had happened.
She either said or implied that she would take action against me if I talked about her behaviour on 4 October.
Mrs GR then rushed out of the room to fetch acting deputy principal Miss AL.
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School, document 12.
2469 File F The District Office, document 78
These documents are copies of acting principal GR’s falsified "record" of the first part of the meeting on 12 October.I first realised that this "record" existed when it was sighted by Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator and described in letter to me dated 23 March 2004.
Stephannie did not release the document to me because-
“ These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with ... ”
But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process. This document was first released to me after 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained Discrimination solicitor.And File F Lynch-Mob State School document 12 had vanished from the "official records"!
1. I did not know that the document existed. I did not know the contents of the document. The document was not discussed with me before either-
Education Queensland still have a copy of this formal decision on my "official record", for example, at FOI 340/5/1295 Document 2588, and also at FOI 340/5/1295 Document 2622, and also at FOI 340/5/1295 2986.
2. Acting principal GR has "spun" this "record" to my disadvantage.
"... Because concerns had been raised with me by both the acting deputy principal (name) ..."
If I had been given the opportunity to respond to this document, I would have responded that -
"... and another teacher ..."
"... and because many of these... "
" ... were similar to the concerns I myself had, ..."
" ... My ideas was (sic) that we might together be able to get (me) to look at some of her strategies in particular those which belittle or embarassed students, or which failed to take into account individual needs. ..."
Notice that acting principal GR had, before she had discussed the situation with me even once, already made her mind up that the gossip about me was true.
"I began the discussion by stressing again to (me) that she had handled a very volatile situation extremely well and noting that this must have been very difficult for her. ..."
"(My name) claimed that I had asked her to stay back and then attacked (me) (verbally) after the incident.
I responded that-
1. She had made it clear by getting up and half shutting the door after Mother D.A. left that she wanted to talk."
2. I had spoken at length about how well she had handled Mother DA's behaviour.
GR's "story" does not make sense.
GR claims that she spoke to me at length on 4 October 2000 about how well I had handled Mother DA's behaviour, then on 9 October she rang the District office and discussed putting me on DWP, then on 12 October she told me again how well I had handled the situation.
Surely it would be obvious to any investigator that either GR's "story" or her behaviour does not make sense?
GR's own notes record her continually changing "story".
Dealing with GR's continually changing "story" was disconcerting.
That is why I told the staff welfare officer that I did not feel safe talking to acting principal GR.
" ... She also made allegations that I was lying about what happened. ..."
I said that she had changed her "story".
And she had.
I also complained that GR had implied that I was a liar-
"... You said my use of that word made you think maybe I had been rude to her earlier.
This implied that I am a liar.
You had just seen me behave calmly and with courtesy in the face of prolonged abuse. ..."
And I said that GR's "angle" today was not the same as the "angle" she had taken on October 4.
And it wasn't.
It was entirely different.
" ... I decided that there needed to be a second person in the room to take notes about what was said for the rest of the meeting so that it would not jeopardise any further action if this was necessary. ..."
G.R. claims that I had misunderstood her abuse and that she was actually telling me that I had done well
- but she was secretly telling other people about her plans to put me on D.W.P.
G.R.'s "story" suggests that she was behaving toward me in quite a deceptive manner.
And, at the time, I had the feeling that G.R. changed her "story" every time that I spoke to her.
I felt very unsafe talking to acting principal G.R.
***************************************************
So, let's keep track of the changes in acting principal GR's "story" to date -
*************************************************
I was not clear why GR wanted acting principal AL to be present at this meeting.
I had asked for the meeting to discuss GR's behaviour during the meeting with abusive Mother DA
Acting deputy principal AL was not at the meeting with abusive Mother DA and I was not keen to behave unprofessionally by discusing GR's poor handling of busive Mother DA's behaviour in front of acting principal AL.
It is possible that acting principal GR simply wanted to enjoy "showing off" to inexperienced acting principal AL-
"Bullies love ... displaying their power ... there is nothing secretive in their methods.
One of the best ways to display power and ward off rivals is to bully with an audience.
This is one of the favourite techniques of a bully boss."
Also Thursday 12 October 2000
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 14-15.
2469 File F The District Office documents 73-74
Acting deputy principal AL's notes on the second half of my meeting with GR to discuss GR's behaviour during the meeting with abusive Mother DA and after abusive Mother DA had left her office.
I first knew that this document existed when it was described to me in a letter dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.
Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-
“ These documents
deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process.”
But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.
The document was not released to me on 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained Discrimination solicitor.
The 2421 version of this document was not released to me till after 27 October 2005.
I first saw a copy of AL's "record" of this meeting when it was released to me after 12 July 2004 in 2469 File F The District Office documents 73-74.
On the left hand side of document 2469 F 74 you can see a note written in usual principal EL’s handwriting ( compare it with EL’s handwiting on 2469 F document 146).
“ Communicative interpretation”
Which seems to prove that, during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process, usual principal EL read and thought about the falsified “records” that were being concealed from me.
"... (My name) then asked if GR could ask (my name) questions about how she handles situations, before telling her that she is 'wrong'. ..."
These notes demonstrate that acting deputy principal A.L. grasped my concern about G.R.'s impulsive decision-making.
On 12 October 2000, I made it clear to GR that her impulsive decision-making was causing me concern and that I wanted her to discuss any concerns with me before jumping to conclusions.
" ... G.R. stated that was exactly what she had done. ..."
And it also demonstrates that G.R. would not listen to my concerns.
The only part of this document that is really falsified is the last sentence.
"... (I) will request another meeting with GR ..."
From memory, we did agree to have another meeting.
But I certainly did not understand that it was my responsibility to organise this meeting.
I was one of the specialist teachers who organised the new "behaviour management strategy", and the meeting with the Grade 6 and 7 teachers on 16 October 2000.
The behaviour problems in the Grade 7 classes were discussed at some length during that meeting.
After the 16 October 2000 meeting GR and AL could have had no doubts that there were problems with the Grade 7 student's behaviour for all specialist teachers.
This seems to have been "spun" into-
"... with regards to difficulties she is having with Grade 6/7 B.O. ..."
" ... and some strategies she has planned to deal with the situation. ..."
I may have told G.R. and A.L. about the meeting with the Grade 6 and 7 teachers that the specialist teachers were organising.
I also -
Also Thursday 12 October 2000
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 16
2469 File F The District Office document 79.
This purports to be a letter that acting principal GR sent to abusive Mother DA on 12 October 2000.
The 2421 version of the letter is dated 12 November 2000, the day after I had rung GR at school and she had confirmed that I was "the person" that she had been talking to to the staff about.
But above the date on the 2469 The District Office version of the letter, GR has drawn an arrow to a message that she has written to usual principal EL:
"Dated wrongly. Was sent on 12/10"
GR first gave me a copy of this letter to abusive Mother DA on 5 December 2000, the day after her meeting with the seven Grade 5 and 6 teachers who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years, and who all fully supported me.
Mother DA had abused me for twenty minutes on the afternoon of 4 October 2000, two months earlier.
GR had not mentioned the letter to me before.
GR seemed very nervous about the letter and particularly asked me not to discuss it with abusive Mother DA.
I had the strong impression that the letter was falsified - that it had never been sent to Mother DA.
Student RDA's father was in the navy.
At about this time he arranged for the Grade 7 children to visit his boat.
I had the impression that GR and abusive Mother DA were friendly.
I did not think that they would be so friendly if abusive Mother DA had received this letter.
It seemed to me to be inappropriate for GR to suggest to abusive Mother DA that -
"What I would ask, however, is that where you have concerns in future you come to see me personally ..."
- because both abusive Mother DA and acting principal GR herself both seemed to me to have a similar approach to situations - they both seemed to grasp at any opportunity to yell abuse and to refuse to listen.
As
I felt that GR needed to encourage Mother DA to ask questions and to establish the real facts of the situation before she began complaining.
And that GR herself needed to do this as well.
Friday 13 October 2000
This is the date on acting deputy principal Miss AL's secret "record" of our conversation on Thursday, 5 October 2000, the day after I had been abused by Mother DA.
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 7.
I first realised that this document existed after 23 March 2004, when it was described in a letter to me from Stephannie Kalas, the Education Queensland FOI liaison officer.
Stephannie Kalas denied me access to this document because-
“ These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process.”
But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.
I first saw this document after 27 April 2004, when Mr ME, the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained "Discrimination solicitor", provided me with a copy of the document.
It had been placed secretly on my official record in breach of the Public Service Regulations, the Departmental Code of Conduct and the Education Queensland DWP policy.
On 19 May 2004 at 3:14 I emailed Keith Hynes keith.hynes@qed.qld.gov.au
I copied the email to postmaster@cmc.qld.gov.au mwinniak@ombudsman.qld.gov.au complaints@cmc.qld.gov.au
I attached my six-page response to 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 7.
" ... I presume that the investigator will not have time to read everything and so I am picking out documents that illustrate the main complaints that I am making.
It appears to be a confidential note to me but I was never shown this document and it was never discussed with me. ... "
I asked the QTU what I should do about the falsified "records" that I was finding on my "official record".
On 17 June 2004 Jeff Backen (QTU Officer) wrote to me to advise me that I could consider lodging a complaint with the Director-General regarding a breach of sections 15 and 16 of the Public Service Regulation 1997.
On 21 June 2004 at 12:35pm I emailed Ken Smith, copied to the CMC and the Ombudsman.
I attached a letter to Ken Smith.
"As you will be aware, I have recently discovered that certain falsified documents were secretly placed on my EQ file before decisions concerning me - the DWP and the Grievance process - were determined. ..."
On 22 June 2004 12:45pm I hand-delivered a printed copy of the 21 June 2004 letter to the District Office of Education Queensland.
I enclosed a printed copy of my response to 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 7 (and to each of the four other falsified documents listed in the letter.)
At 3:37 PM I emailed Ken Smith to advise him that I had hand-delivered a copy of my letter to him and copies of my responses to five of the falsified documents to the District Office.
I named the person to whom I had handed the letter and documents.
"I would appreciate your assurance that the responses will be attached to EACH copy of the falsified documents, wherever they are filed."
For more details see: http://www.badapplebullies.com/freedomofinformation.htm
It is now more than four years since I first responded to 2421 File F document 7.
It is distressing to me to have to keep on responding over and over again for four years to this and so many other falsified "records" because Education Queensland officers, CMC officers and the Queensland Ombudsmen will not / are afraid to read / understand / "know" about my response.
Or they repeatedly claim to have "lost' it.
16 October 2000
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 8, number at top right hand corner of the page.
By 27 October 2005 the 2421 F 8 version of this document had "vanished" from my official record.
2469 F The District Office document 59, number at the top right hand corner of the page.
This document purports to be (in part) acting deputy principal Miss AL's record of the meeting that usual principal Mr EL had suggested that the specialist teachers organise with the Grade 6 and 7 teachers to explain the new "behaviour management" strategy that we had planned to deal with behaviour problems in Grade 7 and, to a lesser extent, in Grade 6, and to agree on some sactions for poor behaviour.
The specialist teachers had been working on this plan since Term 3.
Usual principal Mr EL had been involved in the discussions concerning the development of the new "specialists behaviour management strategy" in the last weeks of Term 3 2000, and also when he was on leave but came to Lynch-Mob State School during one lunchtime in the first weeks of Term 4.
During this meeting one of the other specialist teachers said that, after taking the Grade 7 classes, all she wanted to do was to go home, pull the covers over her head and go to sleep.
One of the other teachers said, "And (my name) has them three times a week!"
Because the other specialist teachers only taught the Grade 7 classes once a week, whereas I taught them three times a week.
Acting principal Mrs GR and acting deputy principal Miss AL were both at this meeting.
So, by 16 October 2000, Mrs GR and Miss AL were both fully aware that there was a problem with the behaviour of the Grade 7 children and that I was not alone in my concern.
After the meeting this same specialist teacher told me that, at a recent staff meeting that I had not attended, there had been discussion of the development of a "Middle School".
She had told the meeting that if the behaviour of the Middle School children was going to be as bad as the behaviour of the Grade 7 children, she wanted nothing to do with it.
She told me that this had caused some consternation.
Also on about 16 October 2000:
2469 File F The District Office documents 40-43
This is the LOTE (Indonesian) update that I wrote for acting principal Mrs GR and acting deputy principal Miss AL after the meeting on 12 October 2000.
They had both agreed, at the end of the 12 October 2000 meeting, that I could write this document for them.
I had realised by that time that neither of them knew very much about Indonesian or about language teaching and that this was going to be a problem.
The date on the first page of this document - document 43 - is falsified.
Mrs GR seems to have written “19/11”, which was the Sunday before I returned from sick leave after the shock of Mrs GR’s announcement to the staff concerning me.
The true date of this document would have been about one month earlier, 16 October, 2000.
I gave this document to several members of staff because I felt quite ashamed of the way that LOTE had been limited during Term 3 2000.
I explained that there was no carpet in the LOTE (Indonesian) classroom and the chairs in the LOTE classroom had made a lot of noise.
The teacher in the class next door complained to me that every half-hour she was being disturbed by the noise of twenty-five chairs being moved as twenty-five children got up, then twenty-five chairs being moved again as twenty-five children sat down.
I had classes coming and going every thirty minutes all day long, and I got very stressed worrying about the noise.
I did not explain this in the document but actually I had spoken to usual principal Mr EL about the noise.
He told me that he would ask the caretaker to put squares of carpet on the bottom of the chairs.
I waited for this to happen for a few weeks, but nothing was done.
So then I discussed the noise of the chairs with Mrs GR.
She just said that the school could not afford to buy me a carpet.
"By 11:00am my ears were buzzing with the noise of the chairs and I had a bad headache from the stress of trying to minimise the noise"
(I did not realise it at the time, but this was tinnitus, which was being triggered by the stress.)
When you are teaching a language, you want the children to speak in the language.
You often ask the children to ask each other questions in the second language.
Unfortunately the noise of the children all speaking to each other also disturbed the teacher next door.
The plays that the children loved doing were also too noisy.
I tried doing the plays outside but that was also too noisy.
I had to think of a way of teaching Indonesian that did not involve using the chairs and tables and minimised speaking.
So the children sat on the floor and played team games in Indonesian while we waited for the chairs to be fixed.
We waited for the rest of the term.
Nothing was done.
The children were bored and I was increasingly stressed.
After a few more weeks I spoke again to Mr EL.
I had the impression that he had simply forgotten all about the chairs and the carpet.
I also talked about the lack of support for Indonesian at that time because every night the news was showing Indonesian troops beating East Timorese people.
Members of the local community were urging me to refuse to teach Indonesian.
The children were telling me that Indonesians were horrible people.
I wrote about the limitations of the generic booklets, and the teaching materials that I wanted to produce-
"… but it does take a huge commitment of my own time to create the materials and the school will need to commit to support the LOTE program with the teacher aide time needed to produce the new materials."
17 October 2000
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 8, number at top right hand side of the page.
By 27 October 2005 the 2421 F 8 copy of this document had "vanished" from my official record.
2469 File F The District Office document 59, number at top right hand side of the page.
This document purports to be (in part) acting deputy principal Miss A.L.'s record of her conversations concerning me with students that I had sent to her because of their poor behaviour.
18 October 2000
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 8.
2421 F 8 -The Lynch-Mob State School version of this document - had "vanished" from my official record by 27 October 2005.
2469 File F The District Office document 59
I first realised that this document existed when it was described in a 23 March 2004 letter to me from Stephannie Kalas, the Education Queensland FOI co-ordinator.
Stephannie advised me that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-
“ These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process.”
But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.
I first saw this document after 27 April 2004, when it was released to me by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.
"Documentation of behaviour management issue with (me) (LOTE teacher) No 2."
This heading is not logical.
It puts an offensive "spin' on the situation.
I was a teacher.
The behaviour management problems were not with me, they were with the Grade 6/7 class BO and with two children in particular - BOS. and BOJ.
I was following the school Behaviour Management Program.
I had sent two misbehaving children to acting deputy principal AL - and AL wrote this 'record' on me and put it on my file!
This document purports to be (in part) acting deputy principal AL's record of my conversation with her about her behaviour.
AL seems to have grasped some part of the point that I was making to her.
She states:
"After lunch (I) came into my office and asked me not to listen to complaints about her from students in the future.
She said it was damaging to her professionally."
"... (my name) was quite insistent and wanted me to make sure the students weren't telling lies."
I had sent these students to AL because of their poor behaviour.
I was following the school Behaviour Management Program by giving poorly behaved children three warnings and then sending them to acting deputy principal AL.
But the children seemed to be manipulating AL and complaining to her about me.
AL did not seem to me to have the experience to realise that she was being manipulated.
It worried me that AL was allowing the children to "get away with" their poor behaviour by telling her lies about me.
Then, when I told AL that the children were "having her on", she was refusing to go back to them and "follow up".
I felt that AL was encouraging the children to lie.
And that AL was undermining me.
" ... I re-stated that I have to listen to students and I am not willing to make students feel uncomfortable about voicing concerns. ..."
These children had been sent to Miss AL because of their disruptive behaviour.
They had been disrupting specialist lessons for months.
Miss AL needed to make them feel uncomfortable about their poor behaviour.
However AL demonstrated no malice towards me at any stage during Term 4 2000.
I do not consider AL to be a bully.
The problem with acting deputy principal AL was her inexperience and her gullibility.
She was much, much too easily manipulated by acting principal GR and by the Grade 7 children.
AL's gullibility put me at risk of harm.
"... (I) went off to class but did not appear happy with the outcome of the discussion. ..."
So, on 18 October 2000, acting deputy principal AL knew that I was worried about her behavior-
allowing the children who were sent to her for poor behaviour to defame the teachers,
and simply accepting the children's lies as facts.
"(My name) and (name of other specialist) volunteered to put this in writing. ..."
Again, if this document existed in 2000, and if usual principal Mr EL had seen it in 2000, he would have immediately known that either acting deputy principal A.L. had innocently misunderstood the situation, or she had been instructed to put a "spin" on the situation to conceal the fact that this meeting was an initiative of the specialist teachers.
Usual principal EL knew that the specialists had organised this meeting to discuss the "behaviour-recording" strategy that they had developed.
Friday 27 October 2000
Acting deputy principal AL came into the Grade 6/7 BO class during my lesson and told them that she was tired of all the complaints that she was getting about them from other specialists and casual teachers.
So, by 27 October 2000, acting principal Miss AL knew that Grade 6/7 OB were poorly behaved for several teachers.
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 56.
This purports to be a letter from a mother, I presume Mother BOJ, written to Grade 6/7 teacher BO.
It purports to be dated 1st November 2000.
I first knew that this document existed when it was described in a letter to me dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, A/FOI Co-ordinator, Education Queensland.
Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-
"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."
But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance Investigation process.
The document was not released to me on 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained Discrimination solicitor.
As this note was not shown to me or discussed with me at the time, I have no way of knowing if the note has been fabricated.
It seems very calm, almost functional.
The tone of the letter suggests to me that Mrs GR might have prompted this student BOJ to ask her mother to write such a letter.
2469 File F The District Office document 57
Acting principal Mrs GR wrote a message for usual principal Mr EL on this 2469 document before giving it to him / putting it on my file.
GR states:
" (acting principal Miss AL) rang to find out why (presumably Mother BOJ said that (presumably student BOJ) was trying hard to behave in LOTE classes but that she was still getting into trouble.
Acting principal Miss AL had come into the 6/7 OB class just the Friday before this purported phone call and told the class that she was tired of all of the complaints that she was getting about their behaviour from specialist teachers and casual teachers.
(acting principal Miss AL) suggested (student) write to (me) to draw attention to the fact that she really was trying (words off the bottom of the sheet) ..."
I find it hard to believe that Miss AL would be so gullible.
Acting deputy principal Miss AL did not discuss this situation with me.
Class teacher OB did not discuss this situation with me.
I not given any letter from the student.
The mother's letter was simply placed secretly on my official record.
And acting principal Miss AL made no mention of this situation in her copious secret "notes" on me.
Which again suggests to me that this situation was simply being "beaten up" by acting principal Mrs GR to create "evidence" to put on my "official record".
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 46
2469 File F The District Office document 56
This document is a handwritten note to me, presumably it is the note from BOJ mentioned above.
This note was never shown to me or discussed with me.
I first knew that this note existed when it was described to me in a letter dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.
Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-
"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."
But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.
The note was not released to me on 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.
I first saw this note after 12 July 2004, when the 2469 F The District Office document 56 copy of the document was released to me.
"11.00 Wednesday
To (My Name),
I am going to make a concious effort to be good in class which I am sure you will notice this improvement. Because I would Really like to go to ten pin Bowling (options) , and I want you to see that I have Change and that I have put all the bad things that I have done in the Past!
From (Presumably BOJ)"
The child BOJ did not give this note to me.
I can only presume that acting deputy pricipal Miss AL took the note from the child, telling the child that she was going to give it to me, but actually handing it to acting principal Mrs GR to put on my "official record".
Again, the primary purpose of the activity seems to have been to generate secret "evidence" to put on my "official record".
If student BOJ was waiting for me to respond in some way, she would have felt let down.
From my notes-
Term 3 2000
On Monday 11 September 2000 BOJ disrupted P.E. by back-chatting the teacher.
On Wednesday 13 September 2000 BOJ disrupted the Indonesian lesson by giggling.
During this Term I spoke to usual principal Mr EL about student BOJ’s behaviour.
I told him that, when I told BOJ that I would follow the School Behaviour Management Program and send her to the office for disrupting the Indonesian lesson three times with poor behaviour, BOJ would say, "Oo-ooh! Scarey!" in a sarcastic tone of voice.
The next time that I sent her to usual principal Mr EL, he instructed her to ring her brother at home and tell her brother what she had done.
BOJ’s behaviour seemed to improve a little after this.
Term 4 2000
On Monday 9 October 2000 BOJ disrupted the P.E. lesson.
On Thursday 12 October 2000 BOJ disrupted the Indonesian lesson by giggling.
On Friday 20 October 2000 BOJ disrupted the Indonesian lesson with continual chatting to BOS.
I took BOS and BOJ to acting principal Mrs GR and told her that I had been following the School Behaviour Management Progam but it did not seem to be improving BOS and BOJ's behaviour.
BOS and BOJ spoke to Mrs GR in "little baby girl" voices.
When she left the room they chatted to each other in their normal voices, arranging what they would do that evening.
When Mrs GR returned, they resumed their "little baby girl" voices.
Mrs GR should have told them to talk to her sensibly, but she said nothing.
Mrs GR agreed with BOS that BOS would finish her work by the next week.
Then Mrs GR seemed to forget about the agreement, and the work was not done.
On Monday 30 October 2000 Jenny disrupted the Music lesson by talking.
On Tuesday 31 October 2000 Jenny disrupted the Indonesian lesson by talking and back-answering.
On Wednesday 1 November 2000 Jenny’s mother seems to have written to ask if she could be excused from Indonesian.
The note seems very calm.
There is no explanation.
I would wonder if somebody had suggested to Jenny that she ask her mother to write such a note.
BOJ seems to have written a note to me to tell me that -
"I am going to make a concious effort to be good in class which I am sure you will notice this improvement. Because ... I want you to see that I have Change and that I have put all the bad things that I have done in the Past!
On 3 October 2000 BOJ was eating during the Indonesian lesson.
On 6 November 2000 BOJ disrupted the Music lesson by talking.
This was the day that I wrote the “yellow slip” about BOS disrupting three classes with her rude and unco-operative behaviour
On 7 November 2000 BOJ was eating during the Indonesian lesson.
On 10 November 2000 acting principal Mrs GR told the staff "there is a person on the staff who is humiliating children".
Friday 3 November 2000
I was worried by the numbers of Grade 7 children who were missing from the Grade 7 classrooms when I arrived to take them for Indonesian.
I knew that these children were just roaming about the school, disrupting the other classes, because they continually disturbed my lessons with other classes, coming into the room and demanding to use the computer "now!" or wanting to take groups of children out of the room to discuss a disco that they were planning to run, etc.
I was worried that I was responsible for the safety of these roaming groups of Grade 7 children if they were supposed to be having Indonesian with me.
Acting principal GR advised me to discuss the problem of the roaming groups of unsupervised Grade 7 children at a staff meeting.
GR put it on the agenda for discussion at the next Friday staff meeting on 10 November 2000.
Then she moved it to the top of the agenda.
GR's "records" are falsified in that she has edited our conversation - and her advice to me - out of her "records".
Monday 6 November 2000
2421 File F documents 51-52.
2469 F The District Office documents 54-55.
This document seems to be a true copy of a Student misbehaviour slip dated 6/11/00.
It concerns student BOS.
Student BOS had been disrupting Indonesian and other specialist classes for months.
Student BOS made personal remarks and was rude to me when the lesson began at 10:00 AM on Monday 6 November 2000, so I warned her once and then I took her to 6R.
During the meeting with the Grade 6 and 7 teachers on 16 October, it had been agreed that I would send poorly behaved students to the "buddy teacher" of the teacher whose class I was teaching.
But, when I was teaching the Grade 7 classes, their "buddy teacher" was often on "non-contact time" and their class would be with the Music or Sport teacher, and it did not seem to be appropriate to send poorly behaved children to Music or Sport.
So, when student BOS was poorly behaved on Monday 6 November, I left the 6/7 OB class to take her to 6R - a class that was nearby - and asked the teacher to take her for the rest of the lesson.
Leaving a class in this way was risky, but I was worried that BOS would just wander about the school if I did not take her to 6R.
At 10:30 AM I was supposed to go directly to Grade 7 LR, but I had to resolve BOS's situation first, so I went to 6R.
BOS was still loud and abusive.
The 6R teacher later commented, "No teacher should have to put up with that sort of behaviour".
I did not feel that I should send BOS to the next specialist teacher because she was still loud and defiant.
I did not have time to take BOS to another class because Grade 7 LR were unattended while I was trying to deal with BOS.
So I decided that the quickest and easiest thing to do was to take her to 7LR with me.
It was also more or less in accordance with the School Behaviour Management Policy that poorly behaved students should be sent to a "buddy class".
When we arrived at grade 7 LR, BOS began by hiding from me and laughed while I looked around the room and in the side rooms for her.
I told her to sit on the carpet, in the middle of the room, where I could see her, and watch groups of 7 LR children who were acting at the front of the room.
As I recorded on the "yellow slip"-
BOS made loud remarks about me - "She reckons ...".
BOS referred to me as "She ..." several times.
She shouted "show off" at the children who were acting, and was generally disruptive.
So I told BOS to turn around and face (in the direction of) the back wall so that she would be less able to disrupt the class.
As I have explained many times since, BOS was nowhere near the wall.
There was never any question of BOS "putting her nose to the wall".
But I had to fill in the "yellow slip" while I was busy teaching, so my wording was ambiguous:
"… I asked her 4x to face the wall before she followed the instruction.
She called out "show off" when people were acting.
(Her) behaviour is rude, un-cooperative and her attitude to me is inappropriate.
She shows no remorse.
She shows off to other children and appears to be entirely defiant.
She denies her behaviour."
Acting principal Mrs GR did not discuss this note with me,
so I had no idea that Mrs GR had, or purported to have, "misunderstood" the note and believed that I had told BOS to stand close to the wall and / or to "put her nose to the wall".
Thursday 9 November 2000
This was the day before the staff meeting.
During this week I had shown each of the Grade 7 teachers the records that I had been keeping of the children who were missing from the classrooms when I arrived to take Indonesian.
I had discussed the particular children who had been missing from their own classes and the reasons that the children had given for being out of the rooms.
I had told each of the teachers that it was not only a problem with their own class, that it was a problem with several classes and that I was going to speak to the staff about it on Friday.
I had spoken three separate times to Grade 7 teacher LR about three separate groups of children from her class who had disrupted my lessons with other classes, demanding that I leave the class that I was teaching and go to my office to get a book that they wanted, etc.
They stood at the door arguing with me while I tried to introduce the lesson.
It really disturbed a 30 minute lesson.
I asked Grade 7 teacher LR to instruct her children not to disturb my lessons with other classes.
She told me to tell them myself.
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 20-21.
2469 File F The District Office documents 51-52.
These handwritten scribbles on scraps of paper / large sticky-notes are 'records" of discussions that GR claims to have had with these Grade 7 teachers on the day before the staff meeting.
I first knew that these "records" existed when they were described to me in a letter dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.
Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-
"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."
But these documents were not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.
I first saw these documents when they were released to me on 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.
GR had advised me to discuss the situation with the whole staff at a staff meeting.
But she had this meeting with the Grade 7 teachers without me.
And she seems to have arranged with the Grade 7 teachers that they would not attend the staff meeting.
I felt that acting principal Mrs GR had betrayed my trust.
Mrs GR’s scribbled notes-
“9/11
(Name of Grade 7 teacher L.R.) re Annie.
Inflexible - won’t move at all.”
I had spoken three separate times that week to Grade 7 teacher LR about three separate roaming groups of her children who had burst into other classes when I was teaching. One group in particular demanded that I leave the class that I was teaching and go to my office to get a book that they wanted.
But-
I asked Grade 7 teacher LR to tell her children not to disrupt my lessons with other classes.
She had told me to tell them myself.
She did not seem to realise how disruptive her children were being.
During Term 3 2000 I had spoken to usual principal Mr EL about the roaming groups of children disrupting my lessons with other classes.
He told me that several other teachers had complained to him about this situation.
He spoke at a staff meeting, asking the teachers not to disturb other classes by sending children "on messages".
At this stage neither usual principal Mr EL nor I realised that the children were not being sent "on messages", they were simply roaming about the school, disturbing the other classes on their own initiative.
“Maybe help with Rich Tasks.
Dogmatic.
Humiliating students.”
In 2001 (I understand that) Grade 7 teacher LR told the Grade 5 and 6 teachers that acting principal Mrs GR “had taken that right out of context” when she had put me on DWP.
I took this comment to mean that Mrs GR had "beaten up" something that Grade 7 teacher LR considered to be a small issue.
“Not interrupting her.
MON PM - see Annie with (name of Grade 7 teacher LR).”
So, on 9 November 2000, Mrs GR seems to have changed her mind and decided not to discuss the situation at a staff meeting - because she knew that at least one (possibly two, I am reasonably sure she approached another person) - of the teachers supported me.
Acting principal Mrs GR was now arranging a different meeting from which people who supported me were excluded.
And she was concealing this from me.
“10/11 Annie not available Mon (see note)
(arrow) Made a strong point about the interruptions to her lessons at staff meeting.”
I spoke briefly, clearly, calmly.
Several teachers told me afterwards that I had spoken really well.
(arrow) Made a strong point about the interruptions to her lessons at staff meeting.”
It would be a lot more more truthful for Mrs GR to record:
Annie spoke to the staff - as I had advised her to do.
I had put this issue on the agenda.
I had moved this issue to the top of the agenda.
Notice the two arrows on this document.
Mrs GR often uses arrows when she hand-writes falsified “records”.
“(Name of Grade 7 teacher NT) says she has worked out a strategy with Annie (not at meeting) but (Name of Grade 6/7 teacher BO) would also like to be involved as she is also finding Annie very inflexible.”
Grade 7 teacher NT seems to have had no problem with me, so GR excluded her from the meeting that she was secretly planning.
"... but (Name of Grade 6/7 teacher BO) would also like to be involved as she is also finding Annie very inflexible.”
Grade 6/7 teacher BO was BOJ and BOS's teacher.
BOJ had been sent to the office on Monday for being rude to me, disrupting three classes and refusing to follow instructions.
On Friday 27 October 2000 acting deputy principal Miss AL had come into the Grade 6/7 BO class and told them that she was tired of all the complaints that she was getting about them from other specialists and casual teachers.
So Miss AL, at least, knew that this class were poorly behaved for everybody.
And I had each of the Grade 7 classes three times a week.
The other specialists only had them once a week.
Friday 10 November 2000
My concern about the roaming groups of Grade 7 children had been put at the top of the agenda for the staff meting.
But acting principal Mrs GR spoke before me.
She announced to the staff that "there is a person on the staff who is humiliating children".
Mrs GR talked at length about this "person".
Her talk had not been on the agenda.
2469 File F The District Office document 5
This document is a true record of what I said at the Staff Meeting on 10 November 2000.
I have included it here because Mrs GR "beat up" what I said in her own notes.
Acting principal Mrs GR had advised me to speak to the staff about the numbers of children who were missing from the Grade 7 classrooms when I arrived to teach Indonesian.The Grade 7 teachers did not attend the staff meeting.
I was very worried that this would give Mrs GR an opportunity to "beat up" what I had said and cause problems for me with the Grade 7 teachers, so I gave each of the Grade 7 teachers a copy of these notes.
This is pretty exactly what I said.
Several staff told me afterwards that I had spoken very well.
"I would like to talk about an issue of professional ethics or plain good manners, really.
I’d like to talk about four possible model for a classroom teacher to bring about a significant change in the way that the LOTE program operates.
Model 1.
You discuss your ideas with me and we agree on a change.
Model 2.
You tell me that you have decided to make a change.
Model 3
You meet me at the door as the lesson starts and tell me about the change that you are making.
A group of children might have already have gone somewhere else, be packed up and ready to go, or be in the middle of doing something else.
You ask me if this is O.K.
I can only agree.
To refuse would cause great ill-will.
Model 4
You tell me nothing.
You are missing from the room when the lesson starts.
A group of two, three or four children are also missing from the room.
The other children tell me that they are in the library or on computers in other rooms.
They say their teacher has told them to do this.
I have no way of knowing if this is true or not.
The next lesson a different group are missing.
Model 1 is the model that I prefer.
I would like to look at alternatives to continual disruption to LOTE.
In the case of Grade 7, I would be very interested in looking at integrating LOTE into the Rich Tasks activities next year.
At the moment there is friction between the unstructured nature of the Rich Task activities and the more formal LOTE lessons.
The children cannot wander in and out of the room “doing their own thing” in a 30 minute LOTE lesson.
I hope I am a reasonable person.
I understand emergencies, special events, one-off situations, etc.
This is the first time that I have objected to something in this way.
This time I felt that the disruption to LOTE had become too great.
Think about last year.
Throughout the year I heard many, many complaints about the disruptions to the LOTE program.
For this reason and that the Grade 7 children missed many lessons and the teachers complained bitterly.
This year they wanted a full-time LOTE teacher so that you could offer a more regular, consistent LOTE program.
And that is what I am asking for now."
Immediately after I had finished speaking, acting principal Mrs GR said that she had already had a meeting with the Grade 7 teachers and they were going to continue to withdraw groups of children from the LOTE lessons.
I was startled.
Mrs GR did not seem to have listened to what I had just said.
I had just been asking to be included in decision-making about disruptions to Indonesian lessons.
Mrs GR clearly had not been listening to what I was saying.
Mrs GR never seemed to listen.
I said, “But we need to discuss that, don’t we?” and Mrs GR said that we could meet to discuss it the next Monday afternoon.
Mrs GR said that we could meet to discuss it the next Monday afternoon.
I knew Mrs GR well enough by then to know that she probably did not want the Grade 7 teachers at the staff meeting because she wanted to "go-between" and "beat my comments up" to the Grade 7 teachers, so I prepared a print-out of exactly what I had said to the staff and gave a copy to each of the Grade 7 teachers.
Several teachers told me that I had spoken very well.
And it was quite funny that Mrs GR had so obviously not listened to what I was saying.
Presumably later on Friday 10 November 2000
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State school document 39 and 40 - numbers at top right hand corner of document.
These notes were never mentioned to me or shown to me during any meeting.
I first knew that the notes existed when they were described to me in a letter to me dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, the Education Queensland FOI officer.
Stephannie refused to allow me to have a copy of these notes because she said that-
"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."
But these "notes" were not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance investigation process.
This document was first released to me after 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.
But he had "blacked out" the names of all of the teachers.
I believe that this should not have been done under the FOI rules.
So this document made little sense to me till I was provided with a better copy on 27 October 2005, one month before the Verifact investigation began.
The unsigned notes are headed-
"8:30 Fri 10/11 Staff Meeting"
This is acting principal Mrs GR’s first version of why she had announced to the staff at the November 10 2000 Staff Meeting that there was “a person” on the staff who was humiliating children.
Actually Mrs GR had told at least one teacher - and probably all of the Grade 7 teachers - that I was “the person” that she was telling the staff about.”
In this first version Mrs GR claims that-
8:30 Fri 10/11 Staff Meeting.
“Following complaints that Annie had been (again) humiliating students (Name of Grade 7 teacher LR, …”
I had asked acting principal Mrs GR the previous week for her support in dealing with the groups of Grade 7 children who were missing from their classrooms when I arrived to teach Indonesian.
During the next week I had spoken to Grade 7 teacher LR three times about roaming groups of her children who had disrupted my lessons with three other classes.
I also showed her my records of the number of children who were missing from the classroom when I arrived to teach Indonesian.
Notice that Mrs GR edits out of her falsified "record" my own request to her the previous week that she support me in dealing with the problem of the groups of children who were missing from the Grade 7 classrooms when I went to teach them Indonesian.
And she edits out of the "record" her advice to me that I speak about the problem at a staff meeting.
And she edits out of her "record" the fact that she put the issue on the white-board agenda for the meeting.
And that she moved it to the top of the agenda.
And that she made sure that the Grade 7 teachers were not at the staff meeting.
Acting principal GR spoke to the staff before me.
She announced that there was "a person" on the staff who was humiliating students.
She spoke about this "person" at length.
I had no idea at all that she was talking to the staff about me.
Another teacher told me the next day that I was "the person" that acting principal Mrs GR had been talking about.
This seems to have been GR's "begin every meeting with a red herring" strategy.
This is a significantly falsified "record".
In this document Mrs GR claimed that she made the announcement to the staff because of allegations made concerning me in-
"notes to Leigh from Desley".
These "notes to Leigh from Desley" were never shown to me or discussed with me.
Now they seem to have vanished.
To this date I have not been allowed to know these allegations against me.
I have never been allowed Natural Justice.
But the allegations made in the "notes to Leigh from Desley" must have been very serious because Mrs GR goes on to state that-
"I further said that as far as I was concerned, humiliating students was a disciplinary offence by teachers."
Only 14 Queensland teachers were put on DWP in 2001.
So the allegations made in the "notes to Leigh from Desley" must have been very, very serious indeed.
"I further said that as far as I was concerned, humiliating students was a disciplinary offence by teachers."
If Mrs GR really did make this statement, I would not have realised that-
because I had not humiliated any child.
Mrs GR had either misunderstood or maliciously "beaten up" the situation.
nor would I have realised that-
because I knew nothing about the DWP.
And it would have been beyond my imagination to believe that a teacher working in a civilised country could be punished for trying to deal with the unsupervised groups of children roaming about the school.
Notice that acting principal Mrs GR was humiliating me in front of the staff - she may actually have been defaming me - at this meeting.
So she should, by her own reasoning, put herself on DWP.
But acting principal Mrs GR never seemed to apply her professed “fundamental beliefs” to her own behaviour.
This is the sort of behaviour that suggested to me that Mrs GR might have some sort of mental health problem.
I have spoken to Desley -------, a teacher working at my school at that time.
Desley's comments to me suggest that these "notes to Leigh from Desley" may actually have concerned the behaviour of a scripture teacher, a casual teacher or an incident that took place in 2003.
Desley was never in or near the Grade 7 classes when I was teaching Indonesian during 2000.
Acting principal Mrs GR seems to have realised during the week that I was on sick leave that she had made a mistake concerning the allegations in the-
"notes to Leigh from Desley"
-and that her impusive and unprofessional behaviour at the staff meeting on Friday 10 November 2000 had made me ill.
Acting principal Mrs GR does not seem to have wanted to attend a meeting with the Behaviour Management Committee, or to attend a mediated meeting, because she did not seem to want to admit that she had made a mistake and to apologise to me for her behaviour.
Mrs GR may also have been apprehensive that I might make a WorkCover claim because her impulsive and unprofessional behaviour had made me ill.
So acting principal Mrs GR seems to have abused her powers to fabricate backdated new "concerns" about me -
partly to "pay me back",
partly as a distration from the meetings that I had requested,
and partly to prevent me from claiming WorkCover.
On 10 April 2006 I described my conversation with Desley -------- in detail in a letter to Tom Barton, Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations.
I asked Tom Barton to pass my letter to the Minister of Education for his attention because the Minister would not respond to my letters.
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 57
2469 File F The District Office document 50.
I first realised that this document existed when it was described in a letter to me dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, A/FOI Co-ordinator, Education Queensland.
Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-
"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."
But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance Investigation process.
I first saw a copy of this document when it was first released to me on 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.
This version of “Why I Did it” needs to be compared with the "story" told in 2421 F 39-40.
This document 2421 File F document 57 is Mrs GR’s Second version of why she had announced to the staff that there was "a person" on the staff who was humiliating children.The reasons given in this second version of "why I did it" are quite different.
In this version, Mrs GR claims that she made her announcements about “the person” who was humiliating children to the staff because of-
a) the wording of the "yellow slip".
b) "Student BOS’s insistence that "although she knew she was misbehaving, she was doing so because she was very angry about the way (my name) treated her".
Student BOS had disrupted three separate classes.
BOS had been really enjoying herself.
BOS had been disrupting my classes and the classes of other specialist teachers for months.
c) "Grade 7 teacher Mrs LR’s comments (unsolicited)"
"unsolicited" but, I would presume, based on Mrs GR’s own "beaten up" version of events.
Grade 7 teacher Mrs LR did not discuss the situation with me.
But in November 2001 Mrs LR said to the staff (I understand) "Oh, Mrs GR took that right out of context", by which I presume she meant that Mrs GR had beaten the situation up.
“about student BOS being taken to her class and publicly disciplined in front of them.”
This was the School Behaviour Management Program.
Student BOS was simply told to sit on the carpet and watch the children practise a play.
BOS called out "show off" to the children who were acting.
She disrupted the lesson.
BOS was instructed to turn around and face away from the actors.
BOS refused three times.
The wording of this version of "why I did it" is very similar to the wording Mrs GR used in 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 39-40.
But Mrs GR has now entirely changed her “reasons”.
The fact that Mrs GR made two quite different versions of this "why I did it" note suggests to me that Mrs GR may have prepared multiple versions of other "why I did it" documents.
Also after the staff meeeting on Friday 10 November, 2000-
2469 File F The District Office document 49
This seems to be a true copy of a hand-written note from me to acting principal Mrs GR.
It would have been written on 10 November 2000, after the staff meeting at which I had asked Mrs GR if we could discuss the numbers of Grade 7 children who were missing from the Grade 7 Classrooms when I arrived to take Indonesian, and Mrs GR had suggested that we meet the next Monday afternoon.
At this stage I had not been warned that “the person” that Mrs GR had been telling the staff about at the staff meeting was me.
"(First name of Mrs GR),
Can we make it - the meeting - Tuesday before school?
I have the two advisors from Brisbane in town next week & the meeting I have organised is on Tues after school.
I would prefer to get organised for that meeting and be available if they need me.
Thanks,
(my name)"
I had been in contact with two LOTE advisory teachers by email for several weeks, helping them to organise an inservice for LOTE teachers in my local area.
Mrs GR wrote a message to me on the top of this note:
"(My name) - This suits me fine. Can you liaise with (first name of Grade 7 teacher Mrs LR) and ( first name of Grade 6/7 teacher Miss BO) to see if they are also available.
Thanks
GR.”
I was never given this note, it was simply placed secretly on my "official record".
If I had received it, I would have wondered why only Grade 7 teacher Mrs LR and first name of Grade 6/7 teacher Miss BO were being involved in the meeting.
Acting principal Mrs GR seems to have been secretly "setting up" a meeting which excluded anybody who agreed with me.
And in Anne’s imaginary note to me she asks me to "liaise" - or organise - this "Get Annie" meeting myself!
Notice how often Mrs GR writes notes to me - and to other people concerning me - that are not actually sent, they are simply placed on my “official record”.
Then, in addition to the note to me that was never given to me, Mrs GR wrote a message to usual principal Mr EL at the right hand side of this document:
" * This was re a meeting to discuss concerns about students being out of class in 7F and 6/7 OB …"
Notice that Mrs GR excludes the Grade 7 NT class.
But groups of children were also missing from the Grade 7 NT class when I went to their room.
I did not know that their teacher was to be excluded from this meeting.
" … during LOTE lessons & to come to some sort of consensus.
I had asked (my name) to attend on Mon. …"
Not exactly true.
I had raised this issue with Mrs GR on 3 November 2000.
She had suggested that I discuss it at a staff meeting.
She put it on the agenda for the Staff Meeting.
But she met with the Grade 7 teachers before the staff meeting and agreed that they would continue to withdraw children from Indonesian lessons.
I spoke at the staff meeting.
The Grade 7 teachers did not attend the meeting.
Mrs GR then said that she had already agreed that they Grade 7 teachers could continue to withdraw children from Indonesian.
I said, "But we need to discuss that, don’t we?"
And Mrs GR suggested meeting the next Monday.
"(My name) was off sick for the entire week (after the telephone incident) & didn’t follow up."
I was off sick because of the shock of being told - and Anne confirming - that I was "the person" that she had been talking to the staff about at the staff meeting.
…& didn’t follow up."
Saturday 11 November 2000
It was Saturday afternoon on the day after I had spoken to the staff about the need to involve me in discussions about changes to the Indonesian timetable.
Several people had told me that I had spoken really well, so I had no sense of danger.
I rang a friend who taught at my school.
We chatted generally and them she said that I should be very careful and documents everything because,
"She's got it in for you."
This was the first moment that I knew that there was anything wrong.
I asked my friend what she meant.
She said,
"You know that "person" that she was talking about, the one who's been humiliating children?
That's you!
Apparently you told student BOS to put her nose to the wall!"
She told me that Mrs GR had said that she was going to put me on DWP if "it" continued.
I was astounded.
I kept saying,
"I didn't do it!
It can't be true!"
My friend realised that I was very upset and was reluctant to tell me any more.
She said that Mrs GR had told her that "the person" was me at some sort of meeting.
I immediately rang acting principal Mrs GR at home.
Her husband told me that she was at school, so I rang her at school.
I said that I had just had a very disturbing phone call from a friend who had told me that I was 'the person" that Mrs GR had been talking about to the staff.
Was it true?
Mrs GR said that it was.
I said, "And you did it because you believe that I told student BOS to put her nose to the wall?
Mrs GR replied,
"That and other things (that you have done), Annie."
She spoke to me in a very harsh tone of voice.
I asked her if she really believed that I would tell a child to put her nose to the wall.
Mrs GR said,
"Well, you told her to turn to the wall."
I said,
"Thank you for confirming that, Mrs GR," and hung up.
I was very shocked.
Student BOS had been sitting in the middle of the classroom, shouting out at the children who were acting at the front of the room
I asked her to turn to face (in the direction of) the back wall so that she would be less able to disturb the actors.
She was sitting on the carpet in the middle of the room.
She was metres away from the wall.
There had never been any question of her “putting her nose to the wall”.
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 47-48
This is Mrs GR's falsified record of that phone call.
I first knew that this falsified "record" existed when it was described to me in a letter dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.
Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-
"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."
But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance investigation process.
I first sighted this document when it was released to me on 27 April 2004 by Mr ME, the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor".
" * Said that she had been speaking to another staff member."
"Phone call Sat pm
... 12 50 am (probably means PM) re
Confirmation* that I had been referring to Annie with comment about humiliating children re asking student BOS to "put her nose against the wall"."
"I said
(arrow up to) not her nose against the wall but
( back to main text) that having Shara face the wall.
"Yes, that was one of the things"
"Well, thank you for confirming that"
Phone slammed down."
I simply put the phone down.
Acting principal Mrs GR "beats up" everything.
She can "beat up" something as simple as putting the phone down into a "big issue".