jocelynne. Thank you for your response. I sincerely hope it doesn't happen again.

It just so happens that this year my youngest son is in Year 4 and he has applied for Opportunity Class for Years 5 and 6. We asked the school to send the application directly to the Director General and asked that nobody previously involved in my families matter be permitted to process his application. We asked this before with our younger daughter in 2004 and 2006. However internal emails produced under FOI show that these persons handled the application and there are even emails/notes stating that these persons names have been removed from the sign off so as to present as though they were not involved.

My son has missed a lot of school; he has developed a bit of an attitude towards learning. He has been home-schooled, has been put on Distance Education on medical and psychological grounds. He has suffered from anxiety and physical ailments due to his fear of school. He has been impacted by what he has seen his siblings go through and the fact that he feels victimized. He insists that he is different and he is not liked because of it. He wants to get into opportunity class, he hopes that there he will find other boys of like mind and maybe he would even have friends. He finds the children of his age childish, aggressive and unpredictable. He finds school long and boring. Luckily this year he has a teacher that likes him so he is coping okay, but he fears next year.

I don’t know what to do anymore. I have been unfairly and internally deemed vexatious by those we allege are responsible. I have tried every avenue to have the matter addressed. It seems like the system is set up to protect those that fail in their duty of care.

I will keep your advice in mind when once again my family are dealt with by the system. Thanks again.

Education - Keeping them honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better.

Dealing With The Mob. My daughter came home from school today telling me that in Legal Studies (she is in Year 11) they are learning about how you can ask a Government Department for a review of a decision and how they are required to review it. She tells me that from what she learned they are supposed to have 'reviews of decisions' reviewed by a panel of impartial people.

A review isn’t supposed to be carried out by one, especially one chosen by, and presented information by, those alleged to be responsible.

The process used is designed to cover up and, in the process, discredit and frustrate complainants.

There is no doubt that there is an expectation that those who are targeted, bullied and victimised cop it sweet. There is even a belief that somehow they must have deserved it. There is also no doubt that this attitude is part of a culture

SA Expert, have you seen the latest news on South Africa? They have a time bomb waiting in the shadows and the government is aware of it.
See the comments made in this forum on the topic of 2010 in South Africa.

clarification

the 'sa' is for south australia in the earlier post clarifying that sa - as in south australia (not south africa) - was first (of the states) with discrimination legislation. federally the racial discrimination act was passed in 1975.

clarification

the 'sa' is for south australia in the earlier post clarifying that sa - as in south australia (not south africa) - was first (of the australian states/territories) with discrimination legislation. federally the racial discrimination act was passed in 1975.

If I wanted to open a chain of restaurants with a "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" theme, I would be sued and outlawed.

As I would only employ white women (as Snow White) and midgets (as dwarves), this would involve multiple forms of discrimination: race, gender, height.

With 7 dwarves for every 1 Snow White, 87.5% of my staff would be midgets.

My restaurants would therefore be specifically designed for people of small stature.

How many other workplaces can you think of that specifically cater to small people's needs?

The design would have the additional benefit of being suitable for the other "little people" of our world: children.

Families would be most of the customers, and children would enjoy both the theme and the child-friendly design.

Why can't I do this? Who am I hurting?
I'm employing minorities and bringing joy to children.
How is this wrong?

Why is there no differentiation between negative "discrimination" and neutral or positive "discriminination"?
Discrimination doesn't automatically imply harm.

And doesn't the employer have a right to say who they employ?
It's their business, their creation, their money at stake.

A perfectly wonderful idea such as the above would be illegal.
It's ridiculous.