OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE OF SPECIAL ...

[Pages:56]OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

Courtenaye Jackson-Chase General Counsel

DATE:

November 5, 2012

Candace R. McLaren Director

TO:

Candace R. McLaren Director

Christopher J. Dalton Deputy Director

Norris W. Knowles Associate Director

FROM :

Dennis Boyles Kara Hughes Robert Small Confidential Investigators

SUBJECT: An Investigation into Cheating and Testing Improprieties at Stuyvesant High School during June 2012

OSI Case #12-5848 ________________________________________________________________________

ORIGIN OF COMPLAINT

On June 29, 2012, the Office of Special Investigations ("OSI") received a referral from the Special Commissioner of Investigation ("SCI") concerning the conduct of Stanley Teitel, Principal, Stuyvesant High School ("Stuyvesant"). On June 25, 2012, Despina Zaharakis, Senior Executive Director, Office of School Support, called SCI to report Mr. Teitel for "testing improprieties." Specifically, Ms. Zaharakis relayed concern that Mr. Teitel had failed to report an incident of student cheating on the June 2012 Regents exams to both State and City officials.1

1 It should be noted that the first media coverage of the Stuyvesant "cheating scandal" was printed in the New York Daily News on Monday, June 25, 2012.

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

OSI Case #12-5848

Stuyvesant students/parents: Student A, 16-year-old, male, 11th grade:

Student A's OSI interview:

Student A was interviewed on July 30, 2012 by Investigators Boyles and Hughes, in the presence of Father A.2 To begin, Student A confirmed that he had used his iPhone

to disseminate test information during multiple June 2012 Regents exams; he explained that he did not get caught until the day that the LOTE exam was given.3 Regarding his

understanding of Stuyvesant's cell phone policy, Student A stated that Mr. Teitel advises

students that he "doesn't check bags;" however, "if a teacher sees a phone, they'll

confiscate it." He further acknowledged that Mr. Teitel has "outlined" this policy

"multiple times."

When asked why he decided to cheat on the exams, Student A expressed that he wanted to garner "good will" amongst his classmates. He explained that he is "good" in Physics, "okay" in U.S. History, and" "not good at all" in Spanish; as such, he was "hoping" that one of the classmates whom he helped on the Physics or U.S. History exam would be motivated to assist him during the LOTE exam.

When questioned, Student A explained that the first conversation he had with any classmates about potentially cheating was held "face-to-face" on Tuesday, June 12, 2012. Following this, Student A and Students E and F communicated about the plan via text messaging.4 When asked about the eventual number of students involved, Student A asserted that the number of students who received his texts "grew and grew." Student A claimed that, although the plan to cheat was "maybe mentioned" on Facebook, no details about the plan were disclosed online.

With regard to how he actually planned to cheat, Student A explained to

Investigators Boyles and Hughes that each Regents exam is proctored by two separate

individuals, the second of whom takes the place of the first mid-way through the three-

hour exam. According to Student A, the first Regents exam he took was the Physics exam: his proctors were Mr. Francis, followed by an unidentified female.5

Initially, Student A asserted that, because he was "familiar with" Mr. Francis and "knew he was hard [an observant proctor]," he "didn't utilize [his] cell phone" until Ms. George came to relieve Mr. Francis of his proctoring post. When Investigators Boyles

2 A summary of Father A's brief interview statements follows the summary of Student A's statements. 3 For reference, the "LOTE" is the "Language Other Than English" exam; it was administered on June 18, 2012. Although it is a city-wide (and not a state-wide) test, a student's performance on the LOTE affects whether he or she receives an Advanced Regents diploma. 4 All attempts to contact and interview Students E and F were unsuccessful. 5 Mr. Francis has been identified as Hugh Francis, ELA teacher; based on the proctoring schedule provided to OSI by Assistant Principal and testing coordinator Randi Damesek, it is believed that the female proctor is Biology teacher Shangaza George.

Chancellor's Office of Special Investigations 65 Court Street - Room 922 ? Brooklyn, NY 11201

Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-2-

OSI Case #12-5848

and Hughes apprised Student A that his phone records indicate that he did use his phone on June 13 during the first half of the Physics exam, Student A clarified, "I didn't use it for answers." When questioned, Student A clarified that the text messages were "all related to the test, but not answers." According to Student A, soon after Ms. George took over as proctor, he "took a picture of [his] scrap paper [that had] all of [his] `short answer' answers on it." At first, Student A stated that he sent the photo to approximately five or six students, but then he later clarified that he sent the photo to upwards of 71 to 80 students, but that only five or six students "had cell phones capable" of receiving the photo message. He clarified that this was the only photograph of the Physics exam that he had sent to his classmates.

Student A asserted that Ms. George was not an astute proctor, and that she did not walk around the room to monitor test-takers. According to Student A, there was an undetermined point in time when Ms. George "fell asleep" while sitting at a desk located at the front of the classroom.6 Student A stated that he capitalized on this, explaining, "I left my cell phone on my desk. The female just sat at her desk and fell asleep."

Student A explained that, aside from the photograph of his scrap paper, the remainder of the messages that he sent out were "text-only." Upon request, Student A indicated that, during the Physics exam, he sent approximately 10 separate text messages to roughly 80 classmates. It was Student A's rough estimation that 15-20% of his classmates wrote him back; he acknowledged that some students wrote him back that he had the "wrong number." When questioned, Student A stated that he had created the predetermined group distribution list "completely [at] random." He explained, "People asked, `Could you put me on the mass text?'" which then expanded the initial group that had been comprised of him, Students E and F.

It was at this point during his OSI interview that Student A contended that he did not send any text messages to students outside of Stuyvesant; he further asserted that he did not make any money as a result of sending out exam answers. When asked what he would have done if he had been unable to access his cell phone during the administration of any of the exams, Student A offered, "I would have prepared a crib sheet and communicated [with my classmates] after I finished a three hour test in two hours."

When asked about the U.S. History Regents exam, Student A detailed that his first proctor was Mr. Jaye, a math teacher, and that Mr. Waxman was the second proctor.7 Student A admitted that he used his cell phone to text answers to classmates during the administration of the U.S. History exam. He clarified that he sent messages that were "text only and no photos," and explained that he was able to access his phone by placing it on his lap.8 Student A stated that he sent roughly 33 texts about the essays that

6 For reference, Student A explained that he was sitting in the second row, on the "complete" opposite side of the room from the desk at which Ms. George fell asleep. 7 According to the proctoring paperwork provided by Ms. Damesek, Gary Rubenstein, and Bernard Feigenbaum were assigned to proctor Student A's U.S. History exam; Gary Jaye teaches Math, and Michael Waxman is a Social Studies teacher. As is detailed in the summary of Ms. Damesek's interview, the proctoring paperwork obtained by OSI reflects the preliminary proctoring schedule ? Ms. Damesek acknowledged that adjustments were made to this schedule, often as late as the day-of the exam. 8 Student A, who has a slight frame, demonstrated that held his legs together and placed his knees on the edge of his desk, so as to access his phone without much difficulty.

Chancellor's Office of Special Investigations 65 Court Street - Room 922 ? Brooklyn, NY 11201

Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-3-

OSI Case #12-5848

appeared on the U.S. History exam, and that he had to send "one text per essay." He told Investigators Boyles and Hughes that he messaged fewer people during the U.S. History exam than he had during the Physics, estimating that he texted somewhere between 40 and 50 classmates. Student A could not recall how many of his classmates responded to his texts during the History exam ? he estimated that "maybe between three and five kids" wrote back. According to Student A, because he was "nearly done" by the time Mr. Waxman relieved Mr. Jaye of his proctoring duties, he was "almost done" with both his exam and his efforts to disseminate exam answers to his classmates when Mr. Waxman became the classroom proctor.

Student A reported that Ms. Arora and an unidentified female were his proctors for the ELA exam.9 Student A stated that there was "no cheating" during the administration of the ELA Regents exam. He clarified that he received texts from "five to ten people" asking for help, to which he replied, "English is easy."

When asked about the LOTE exam, the only proctor Student A named was Mr. Tillman.10 Student A told Investigators Boyles and Hughes that he later found that he had been "set up," and that Mr. Tillman had been placed in his testing room for the express purpose of watching Student A.11 According to Student A, Mr. Tillman was responsible for "giving the opening talk," regarding testing procedures. When questioned about the content of Mr. Tillman's announcements, Student A replied, "I think he said something about phones. I recall him saying something like `phones away.'"

According to Student A, within "five minutes" of beginning the LOTE exam, Mr. Tillman caught him while he took a photograph of the exam and sent it to approximately five or six classmates. Student A explained that he was sending the photo to students whom he believed could provide useful assistance on the essay portion of the exam. Student A stated that Mr. Teitel was "walking by the [class]room" at roughly the same time that Mr. Tillman caught him. Mr. Teitel then entered the room and, "in front of [Student A's classmates], asked "Do you have a phone on you? Give it to me." When Student A questioned, "Why?," Mr. Teitel replied, "Because I'm the Principal." Following this, Student A relinquished his cell phone to the Principal; he then accompanied Mr. Teitel to the main office.

Student A stated that, once he was in the Principal's office, Ms. Damesek arrived. According to Student A, Ms. Damesek "told me I could finish my test." When Student A questioned why he would he should take the time to finish the test, Ms. Damesek remarked something to the effect of, "It doesn't matter, just fill in [Scantron] bubbles." It was Student A's stated belief that, as he worked on completing his LOTE exam, Ms. Damesek and Mr. Teitel were attempting to retrieve information from his iPhone. He stated that, at a certain point in time, they received assistance from "Mr. Wong, the tech

9 Ms. Arora has been identified as chemistry teacher Sushma Arora; the proctoring paperwork provided by Ms. Damesek indicates that Ms. Arora and Ms. Roz Bierig, Biology teacher, proctored Student A's ELA exam. 10 According to the paperwork provided by Ms. Damesek, Neil Wang and Robert Rosen were the teachers initially assigned to proctor Student A's LOTE classroom; Mr. Tillman has been identified as Social Studies teacher Dan Tillman. 11 Student A was not certain who had apprised him of such.

Chancellor's Office of Special Investigations 65 Court Street - Room 922 ? Brooklyn, NY 11201

Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-4-

OSI Case #12-5848

guy," who "tried to download" data from Student A's phone onto a school computer.12 Student A was also told that his father was being called to the school.

At an undetermined point in time prior to Father A's arrival, Mr. Teitel asked Student A why he had "done it." Student A, who understood the inquiry to mean "why'd you cheat on the LOTE," told his Principal that he was sorry. Once Father A was present, Mr. Teitel announced to both Student and Father A, "There's no way I'm keeping him at Stuy."

Student A stated that, when he and Father A returned to the school on June 19, 2012,13 Ms. Damesek spoke about his having to "leave the school" "before it hits The Post." In saying this, Student A believed that Ms. Damesek was referencing him having used his cell phone to disseminate information to classmates during multiple exams. During this conversation, Ms. Schindler, Student A's guidance counselor, appeared and suggested that she would "handle the paperwork."14 Mr. Teitel, Ms. Damesek, and Ms. Schindler then told Student A, "You're going to leave the school. There are two ways it's going to happen: a transportation transfer or you tell [officials], `I'm worried I'm going to get beat up.'" It was Student A's contention that Mr. Teitel vowed that, if an administrator from any other school called Stuyvesant asking about Student A, he would not "say anything about cheating." Student A was then given his "whole file," and directed to go to a DOE Enrollment Office to speak with a representative about affecting a transfer.

Student A stated that, at Mr. Teitel's advice, on June 19, 2012, he and Father A traveled to a Manhattan Enrollment Office where they interfaced with an unidentified male employee. Despite speaking with the Enrollment official about the possibility of Student A transferring from Stuyvesant, Student A stated that he did not provide the enrollment officer with any paperwork.

When questioned, Student A stated that he did not feel any sense of danger from any of his Stuyvesant classmates. He further confirmed that, to his knowledge, no one affiliated with Stuyvesant had made any threats against him.

Student A's phone records:

Based upon a subpoena prepared by SCI, OSI was granted access to Student A's telephone records for all activity on his cellular phone between June 1, 2012 at 5:17:54 AM and June 30, 2012 at 9:43:18 AM.15 The records reflect both outgoing and incoming communication.

12 "Mr. Wong" has been identified as Edward Wong, Assistant Principal of Technology Services. 13 At this point during Student A's interview, Father A interjected, explaining that they had returned to Stuyvesant so that "[Student A] could apologize" for having cheated. 14 Ms. Schindler has been identified as guidance counselor Mazra Schindler. 15 A copy of this record is enclosed in this case file for reference.

Chancellor's Office of Special Investigations 65 Court Street - Room 922 ? Brooklyn, NY 11201

Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-5-

OSI Case #12-5848

Communication during the June 13, 2012 Physics Regents exam, administered between roughly 1:15 and 4:15 PM:16

It appears that, at 1:14 PM, Student A sent one text message simultaneously to approximately 50 recipients thought to be members of a pre-determined group distribution list.17 Outbound messages appear to be sent throughout the duration of the exam period. By the undersigned investigators' count, during the three hour period in which the Physics Regents exam was being administered, 1017 messages were sent from Student A's phone and 37 incoming messages were received.

Communication during the June 14, 2012 U.S. History Regents exam, administered between roughly 9:15 AM and 12:15 PM:

Based upon his phone records, in the minutes leading up to the administration of the U.S. History exam, Student A sent a series of consecutive messages, not to group distribution list, but, rather, to specific telephone numbers. Beginning at 8:49 AM, Student A sent 40 consecutive messages to XXX-XX-XX50; no incoming messages were received in response. Student A then sent 36 consecutive messages to XXX-XX-XX50; no incoming messages were received. This pattern repeated itself up until roughly 9:16 AM, such that 17 additional phone numbers received similar individualized blasts.

By the undersigned investigators' count, it appears that Student A sent a total of 796 text messages to 28 different recipients between 8:49 AM and 12:15 PM; during this time period he also received 14 messages. However, based upon the timing of these text messages, it does not appear as if Student A sent a text message to a group distribution list during the administration of the U.S. History Regents exam.

Communication during the June 15, 2012 ELA Regents, administered between roughly 9:15 AM and 12:15 PM:

The undersigned investigators' tally revealed that Student A sent out 30 individual text messages while the ELA exam was being administered. His phone records also indicate that he received 24 incoming messages during this three-hour period of time.

Communication during the June 18, 2012 LOTE exam, administered between roughly 12:30 and 3:30 PM:

According to his phone records, between 12:17 and 1:49 PM, Student A received ten messages, from seven different phone numbers. The next message was not received

16 According to Margaret Reardon, Associate Education Analyst, Office of Assessment, DOE, students who have finished a Regents exam are permitted to leave the examination room 45 minutes after the exam began. Randi Damesek, Stuyvesant's testing coordinator, indicated that students are permitted to leave an examination room after one hour and 45-minutes. As such, even with the available evidence, it is impossible to determine Student A's (or any student's) whereabouts during the later portion of the administration of any Regents exam. 17 Text messages that were sent at intervals of ten seconds or shorter were considered part of a group distribution list; those sent at intervals that exceeded ten seconds were not considered part of a list. To illustrate, messages sent at 1:13:02, 1:13:08, and 1:13:15 would be considered a part of a distribution list, but messages sent at 1:13:02 and 1:13:13 would not.

Chancellor's Office of Special Investigations 65 Court Street - Room 922 ? Brooklyn, NY 11201

Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-6-

OSI Case #12-5848

until 3:02 PM. Between 12:17 and 1:49 PM, Student A did not send out any text messages.

Father A:

At the close of Student A's July 30, 2012 OSI interview, Father A ? who had been present during his son's interview ? spoke with Investigators Boyles and Hughes in the presence of Student A. He confirmed that he had appeared at Stuyvesant on June 18, 2012, at the request of an administrator. Upon his arrival, Father A spoke with Mr. Teitel who told him, "He's not staying in my school."

Father A explained that he and Student A returned to Stuyvesant on June 19th, as Father A wanted for Student A to "apologize" for having cheated. Father A stated that he spoke with Mr. Teitel on June 19th, imploring him to keep Student A at Stuyvesant. In response, the Principal said, "I'm not going to listen any more. He's not staying in my school." Mr. Teitel then "put [Father and Student A] in touch with a guidance counselor."

According to Father A, "after" the incident was reported in the New York press, Jie Zhang called him to discuss Student A's status at Stuyvesant.18 Father A said that Ms. Zhang "asked if [Student A] had a safety problem," to which Father A indicated that he did not. Ms. Zhang responded by saying she "could help." Ms. Zhang also requested that Father A "put in writing" that Student A "doesn't have a safety problem." During this telephone conversation, Ms. Zhang had explained to Father A that she was leaving for China, but that she would touch base with him upon her return. At that time of Father A's OSI interview, he had only spoken with Ms. Zhang that one time.

Father A stated that, "on the last day of school," Ms. Schindler notified him, "We couldn't do a transportation transfer."19 She then provided Father A with Student A's file in addition to "safety transfer paperwork." Father A recalled, "The Principal signed [the paperwork] in front of me and I left." Father A confirmed that he and Student A were later "rejected" by the Enrollment Office, whose representative did not approve Student A's transfer. Father A clarified that he did not know why the transfer was denied, but offered that he was satisfied with the result, as he wanted Student A to remain at Stuyvesant.

Children's First Network ("CFN") personnel:

Jie Zhang, Network Leader:20

Ms. Zhang was interviewed by Investigators Hughes and Small at OSI on July 26, 2012. At that time, she explained that she learned of the reported "cheating incident" when she received a call from Mr. Charles Amundsen, the Cluster Leader, on Monday,

18 At the time of said phone call, Ms. Zhang was Stuyvesant's Network Leader; in August 2012 she was appointed as the new Stuyvesant Principal. 19 It is believed that Father A is referencing June 27, 2012, the last day of school for all students. 20 Effective August 6, 2012, Ms. Zhang became Stuyvesant's Interim-Acting Principal.

Chancellor's Office of Special Investigations 65 Court Street - Room 922 ? Brooklyn, NY 11201

Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-7-

OSI Case #12-5848

June 25, 2012, at approximately 6:00 PM. After Mr. Amundsen explained that the DOE's Press Office had received a call from a reporter inquiring about Stuyvesant, Ms. Zhang notified the Cluster Leader that she did not know anything about the incident in question. She then called Mr. Teitel.

According to Ms. Zhang, during the evening of June 25, Mr. Teitel confirmed that, "Yes, kids were caught cheating," explaining, "We notified parents. We took care of it." Mr. Teitel did not indicate the specific exams during which the students had cheated. Ms. Zhang then notified Mr. Teitel that the incident was "in the news," and asked him to "put in writing" how he had handled the incident thus far. Ms. Zhang then called Mr. Amundsen to apprise him of what she had learned; it was at this time that Mr. Amundsen requested that Ms. Zhang report to Stuyvesant the following day.

Ms. Zhang confirmed that she traveled to Stuyvesant on the morning of June 26, 2012; before arriving at the school, she learned that Ms. Zaharakis was going to be holding a conference call ? of which Mr. Teitel was a participant ? later that day. Upon arriving at the school, Ms. Zhang stated that she "sat with the Principal," and asked him to detail the events leading up to when Student A got caught cheating. Prior to his participation in the conference call, Mr. Teitel explained to Ms. Zhang that, before the administration of the LOTE exam ? "possibly on Friday June 15th" ? he had received a report from a student warning him that "cheating will take place" on an upcoming exam. It was at roughly this point during their conversation that the conference call began.

Once the call started, Mr. Teitel explained to Ms. Zaharakis and various other call participants that, on the day that Student A was caught cheating on the LOTE exam, he "called a cabinet meeting" during which it was determined that a proctor would be "added" to the room in which Student A was scheduled to take his exam. According to the account provided by Mr. Teitel, Student A was "caught trying to send a message out [from a cell phone]. [Initially] the student refused to give up the phone." Mr. Teitel also clarified that Student A was given the opportunity to finish taking the LOTE exam. While the student was completing his exam, Stuyvesant's Assistant Principal of Organization ("APO") began "checking" Student A's phone.21 According to Mr. Teitel, Ms. Damesek then began to "record names of students [Student A] sent massive emails out to." During the conference call, Mr. Teitel estimated that Student A's group message was sent to as many as 69 recipients.

Ms. Zhang stated that, during the conference call, Mr. Teitel recounted how, on June 18, he called Father A, who agreed to travel to Stuyvesant to retrieve Student A. While the father was en route, Ms. Damesek continued to work with the data on Student A's phone. Ms. Zhang recalled, "I think it took hours to record [student] names." Mr. Teitel explained that, once Father A arrived at Stuyvesant, he "had a conversation" with the father about "transferring [Student A] to another school." Ms. Zhang also recalled that Mr. Teitel told the participating members of the conference call that, with Student and Father A's consent, the student's cell phone remained at the school.

21 It has been established that Stuyvesant's APO is Randi Damesek.

Chancellor's Office of Special Investigations 65 Court Street - Room 922 ? Brooklyn, NY 11201

Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-8-

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download