Public Hearing - January 24, 2012
1 BEFORE THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
2 --------------------------------------------------
3 PUBLIC HEARING
4 POLICY AND PROCEDURES PERTAINING TO THE
SECURITY OF THE SAT AND STANDARDIZED TESTS
5
-----------------------------------------------------
6
7 Van Buren Hearing Room A - 2nd Floor
Legislative Office Building
8 Albany, New York
9 January 24, 2012
12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
10
11
12 PRESIDING:
13 Senator Kenneth P. LaValle
Chair
14
15 SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT:
16 Senator Toby Ann Stavisky (RM)
17 Senator Lee M. Zeldin (RM)
18 Senator David Carlucci
19 Senator Joseph A. Griffo
20 Senator George D. Maziarz
21 Senator Gustavo Rivera
22 Senator Joseph E. Robach
23
24
25
2
1
SPEAKERS: PAGE QUESTIONS
2
Thomas Rudin 16 26
3 Sr. VP for Governmental Relations
Kathyrn Juric
4 Vice President of the SAT Program
College Board
5
Raymond Nicosia 16 26
6 Executive Director, Office of
Testing Integrity
7 Educational Testing Service (ETS)
8 Steven Maiselson 57 58
Former Employee
9 Prometric, subsidiary of ETS
10 James Hayward, Ph.D., Sc.D. 65 77
President & CEO
11 Applied DNA Sciences
12 David Wicker 83 88
Vice President of Research & Development
13 Jody Sherman
Sr. Business Development Specialist
14 Document Security Systems, Inc.
15 Ray Philo 89 96
Director of Research Operations,
16 Dept. of Economic Crime and
Justice Studies
17 Utica College.
18 ---oOo---
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1 SENATOR LAVALLE: Before we begin, to my left
2 is the ranking member of the Committee,
3 Senator Toby Stavisky; to my right is
4 Senator Lee Zeldin.
5 And, I want to thank everyone for being here.
6 This hearing of the Senate Higher Education
7 Committee is convening, to continue its
8 investigation of policies and procedures pertaining
9 to the security of standardized tests.
10 We have a number of witnesses here today, and
11 among them, representatives from the College Board,
12 Educational Testing Service, experts in security,
13 who will provide testimony to the Committee about
14 ways to secure standardized tests, as well as
15 testimony from a former testing employee.
16 Let me just say for the record, that the
17 Committee invited the principals of both
18 College Board and ETS.
19 And, it's kind of a continuing record of,
20 "We're too busy." "We're out of the country."
21 "We're"...wherever.
22 So, we will have to, at some juncture, bring
23 the principals back, because the Committee has
24 policy questions, that people here today, while they
25 have a certain expertise, and so forth, I think it
4
1 would be unfair to ask them, although we might ask
2 them, anyway.
3 Last October, at the Committee's first
4 hearing, examining test security and cheating, I
5 opined that these hearings are somewhat like the
6 locust. Every number of years, we have a hearing,
7 and, College Board appears, ETS appears. We air the
8 issue. ETS and College Board give testimony. They
9 answer questions. And, then, something either
10 happens, or doesn't happen, after that.
11 In my experience, it's been the work of this
12 Committee that has tackled the issues ETS and
13 College Board will not, and cannot, or refuses to,
14 tackle.
15 As many of you in this room know, within the
16 last couple of weeks, our Committee held, kind of, a
17 "first of its kind" meeting; an open Committee
18 meeting, where just about the full Committee was in
19 attendance, and we discussed potential legislation.
20 And that legislation is in draft form; has not been
21 filed yet. And, we hope that we will get input on
22 that legislation.
23 The most critical thing for the Committee,
24 first up, was secured test administration.
25 "A secured test administration."
5
1 Because, if we have a secured test
2 administration, we will not have to deal with things
3 that follow, in terms of penalties, misdemeanors, or
4 felonies.
5 And, we have a mixture of both of those.
6 This Committee has, uhm -- well, enacted the
7 Truth in Testing Law in 1979.
8 And, then, in -- and then there was some
9 subsequent bills dealing with: What kinds of
10 results do we have, in terms of race, gender,
11 ethnicity?
12 And, so, the Committee is very concerned
13 about the whole testing issue, not only whether the
14 test itself was the best possible product a student
15 could take.
16 But, in 1992, we had, and we implemented,
17 protections for test takers, following a case in
18 East Los Angeles.
19 Earlier high school students taught by an
20 acclaimed teacher, Amy Escalante -- Jaime Escalante,
21 were asked to retake an AP calculus test because
22 they were suspected of cheating.
23 All twelve, who did so pass, and their
24 experience later, was dramatized in the movie
25 "Stand and Deliver."
6
1 In 2006, this Committee examined problems
2 related to misreported scores and the accuracy of
3 SAT scores, because students and colleges did not
4 learn about the misreported scores until five months
5 after the test.
6 This Committee, the New York State Higher
7 Education -- Higher Education Committee, has been
8 the only source of protections that exist for
9 test takers in the country.
10 The laws that emanated from the work of this
11 Committee, through both the Senate and the Assembly,
12 set the standards for practices that standardized
13 tests for university admissions, follow around the
14 country.
15 It seems, as New York goes, so goes the rest
16 of the country.
17 So, here we go again.
18 Since we last convened, thirteen more current
19 and former high school students faced arrests for
20 their roles in the cheating scandal that has placed
21 the national spotlight on lax security and the
22 procedures at the testing sites.
23 The Nassau County District Attorney uncovered
24 nine more students who paid for test takers, from
25 the years 2008 to 2011, to take the SAT and ACT for
7
1 them so they would achieve a higher score.
2 The test takers took payments, ranging from
3 500 to 3,600 dollars.
4 According to a Nassau DA, ETS told
5 prosecutors that it conducted its own investigation
6 of the matter, but it was unable to provide some
7 investigative -- investigation documentation to
8 prosecutors because of document-retention problems.
9 As many people here know, CBS "60 Minutes"
10 aired an interview with a test-taking imposter who
11 detailed how easy it was for him to slip in and out
12 of test centers, posing as someone else, even --
13 "even" -- as a member of the opposite sex.
14 As Great Neck North principal,
15 Bernard Kaplan, so eloquently described at the last
16 hearing:
17 "The only identification you need to produce
18 to take an SAT is a school ID, which any
19 fifth grader with a computer can make. Make up a
20 school, put any name on it you like, and your
21 picture on a card. Sign that name, and pick a
22 mascot for good luck.
23 "You know, you now have everything you need
24 to be anyone that you want to be, for purposes of
25 taking an SAT. You can now take an SAT anywhere in
8
1 the country under that name.
2 "In fact, if you further want to cover
3 yourself, and cover your tracks, you don't even have
4 to go to the site that you requested, or, the site
5 to which ETS has assigned you to. You can go as a
6 walk-in to any site that you desire, using that same
7 made-up ID."
8 I'm concerned that many of the Committee
9 voice similar concerns about who will pay for
10 improving test security.
11 And I think I can speak for all of my
12 colleagues in answering: It should not be the
13 students, or their families.
14 You know, ETS income, according to its own
15 filing, was more than $900 million in past years.
16 And more than thirty of its executives earn, from a
17 high of more than 700,000, to a low of about
18 200,000.
19 All told, more than 10 million in
20 compensation for a not-for-profit executive.
21 "Not-for-profit."
22 More startling is the compensation for
23 trustees, who, according to its 2009 tax return,
24 worked an average of 1.5 hours a week, and were paid
25 in the range, from 15,000 to 54,000, each.
9
1 You know, that's not bad for what amounts to
2 about two weeks' work.
3 And, you know, you can't make this stuff up.
4 Staff, I know was moving kind of quickly. We
5 wanted other years, and we could not find other
6 years.
7 So, you know, one of the things I'm going to
8 request today, is that we have the most recent years
9 so that we can look at some of the numbers that I
10 just talked about.
11 Similarly, the College Board pays its
12 executives well, for a not-for-profit.
13 Twenty-four of its executives earn, from a
14 high --
15 I hope no one has heart troubles here.
16 -- from a high of more than 1 million, to a
17 low of about 230,000.
18 And I'm reciting numbers, again, from the
19 2009 report.
20 So, surely, there's room for both
21 organizations.
22 And I emphasize, non-profits to pay for
23 security that goes into the very heart of their
24 business.
25 The credibility of the tests has been
10
1 undermined; and, thereby, the credibility of the
2 process that determines who gets into a given
3 college has been called into question.
4 I, and this Committee, urge you to consider
5 some of the commonsense approaches to addressing
6 security; some of the security measures that you're
7 going to hear today.
8 Just in closing: Some people have now
9 gotten, because of the media attention, why this is
10 such a big deal.
11 You know, initially, people were saying,
12 Why's this such a big deal?
13 Well, it is a big deal because, certain
14 students are getting into competitive schools, or to
15 a college; and, those who have played by the
16 rules -- taken prep courses, taken out books, taken
17 courses on-line -- they played by the rules, may
18 have fallen short.
19 So, people, and the pressure is great --
20 "it's great" -- put upon these students. They now
21 have been pushed to cheating; doing things that are
22 wrong under the law. And, in Nassau County, some
23 are being punished to the fullest extent of the law.
24 And, uhm -- but, it's morally wrong, and it's
25 reprehensible, that students and their families who
11
1 play by the rules end up getting the short end of
2 the stick.
3 Senator Stavisky.
4 SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes, let -- it's you and
5 me, I suspect, because I think we both probably took
6 the SAT scores.
7 First, let me thank Senator LaValle for,
8 again, reconvening the Committee.
9 And, the people who are here today, we
10 appreciate your coming; and, at the same time, we
11 are disappointed that the decision-makers at the top
12 are not here.
13 I was at the hearing out on the Island in
14 October, and I was disappointed in some of the
15 responses. I thought they were vague. I thought
16 that, uhm -- inconsistent.
17 And, I hope -- was hoping today we might have
18 more clarity.
19 For example: I had asked about who's going
20 to bear the cost of the security report. That, I
21 hope it's not passed along to the students.
22 And I really did not get an answer to that
23 question.
24 And Senator LaValle mentions -- mentioned the
25 compensation, both of the executive staff and the
12
1 board members.
2 And, recently, the Governor indicated that he
3 was going to try to limit compensation to the heads
4 of not-for-profit agencies that receive State
5 funding.
6 And this might be another place to start,
7 because I think it's excessive. And, at the same
8 time, again, if there's so much profit, then the
9 profit ought to be passed along to the consumers,
10 which are the students.
11 I hope we have more clarity today on the
12 testing and cheating information.
13 The data that we heard in --
14 Where was it held?
15 SENATOR LAVALLE: Farmingdale.
16 SENATOR STAVISKY: -- in Farmingdale, it was
17 inconsistent, particularly when we asked: How many
18 are involved? What kinds of cheating have you come
19 across?
20 The answers were not satisfactory.
21 I have read Senator LaValle's draft bill.
22 And while we may have some differences, I think it
23 addresses some of the concerns involving penalties,
24 which I think are inadequate. It involves --
25 includes security, which I think is important.
13
1 And I think we also have to -- we have a
2 third player in this.
3 The legislation talks about the test taker,
4 and the person who does the impersonating, and the
5 person who provides the funding. And, it leaves out
6 the other ingredient; and that's, those that are
7 responsible for the security.
8 So, I look forward to listening to what the
9 people here today are going to say about security
10 measures.
11 At the hearing in Farmingdale, I had the
12 feeling, that if they had listened to the
13 Superintendent of Schools, they could have saved a
14 lot of money on their consultants, because he gave
15 some very simple solutions to how to beef-up the
16 security.
17 So, again, we do appreciate your coming, and
18 I look forward to hearing how we can remediate this
19 problem.
20 Thank you.
21 SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator Robach has joined
22 us.
23 Senator Zeldin, any comments?
24 SENATOR ZELDIN: Senator LaValle, thank you
25 for your leadership, and your invitation on this
14
1 issue.
2 Thank you to all the other participants that
3 are here on behalf of the residents of their
4 Senate District.
5 This has been an issue very close to home for
6 us, as we read in our local papers and "News Day"
7 and watch on "News 12," as this story has developed
8 and unfolded.
9 I was also participating in the event on
10 Long Island. Was not very impressed with the
11 inconsistency, as Senator Stavisky had mentioned,
12 with regards to the answers to some of my questions.
13 Hopefully, we can have some more clarity on
14 all of our concerns.
15 The integrity of the tests and the process
16 and the participants have been compromised.
17 While I think the ideal preference would be
18 for the folks responsible for administering the test
19 to take care of this issue on their own, the fact
20 is, you know, I guess we're not getting there.
21 And, I'm happy that Senator LaValle and this
22 Committee has been so active in helping to guide and
23 lead this, hopefully, to a, uhm -- to an end result
24 that has that integrity restored to this very
25 important test for our students.
15
1 SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator Robach?
2 SENATOR ROBACH: Yeah, let me just thank you,
3 Mr. Chairman, for taking this head on.
4 I think we all agree, that, not only do you
5 want integrity, but in today's world, if there isn't
6 that integrity in the testing, it's not just that
7 some people that might not make it are getting in,
8 they're often bumping people who are trying to get a
9 certain spot or a certain place, get the college
10 they want.
11 So, it's important that we do that.
12 I'm hopeful, from all of this discussion, we
13 will be able to come up with something that will be
14 fairly reasonable.
15 And, I'm kind of leaning towards the group,
16 that, we just have to stop -- or, make sure, that
17 may be a better way to put it, that the right people
18 are taking the test, and not the wrong one.
19 And I have every assurance we'll get to that.
20 Thanks.
21 SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay.
22 Before we have our first people testifying,
23 we do have copies here of the draft bill, and a
24 memorandum.
25 So, it's here for you to take away, look at,
16
1 and make comments to the Committee.
2 The first people who will testify are,
3 Kathy Juric, who is vice president of the SAT
4 program for College Board;
5 And, Tom Rudin, senior vice president for
6 governmental relations, College Board;
7 And, we have a third person, Ray Nicosia,
8 executive director of Office of Testing Integrity.
9 SENATOR STAVISKY: Seems like an oxymoron.
10 THOMAS RUDIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11 And, I assume this is on?
12 SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, sir.
13 THOMAS RUDIN: I'm Tom Rudin. I'm
14 senior vice president for government relations at
15 the College Board.
16 To my right is, Kathryn Juric, who's
17 vice president for our SAT program at the
18 College Board;
19 And, to my left is, Ray Nicosia, who is
20 executive director of the Office of Testing
21 Integrity at ETS.
22 And, we want to thank you for the opportunity
23 to be here today. We're eager to work with you on
24 these issues, and we're hoping that the information
25 we can provide to you today will bring the clarity
17
1 you're seeking, and can contribute to a constructive
2 ongoing dialogue with you all as you craft your
3 legislation.
4 I'll summarize my remarks rather than read
5 every word, as, obviously, you have those before
6 you.
7 But, I do want to take a few minutes to
8 state, that the College Board, as you know, is a
9 New York-based not-for-profit organization comprised
10 of member schools, colleges, and universities.
11 6,000 schools, colleges, and universities
12 comprise the membership of the College Board,
13 including, 438 member schools in New York State; and
14 124 of those, colleges and universities in New York.
15 So, we're a member organization, and we get
16 our guidance from our members and our trustees.
17 We were founded in 1900 to democratize
18 education. And, all our work is committed to the
19 principles of equity and education, and we serve
20 more than 7 million students around the world every
21 year.
22 Our best-known programs, obviously, the SAT,
23 the PSAT, and the Advanced Placement Program.
24 And just one example of our service to
25 students: New York State actually ranked second in
18
1 the country last year, in the percentage of students
2 who scored a qualifying grade on the AP exam.
3 So, last year, 126,000 students in the state
4 got the qualifying score, and had the potential
5 college-tuition savings, of anywhere from 46 to
6 71 million dollars for their families, because of
7 the credit they earned in AP while in high school.
8 Our commitment to excellence and equity
9 extends to every one of our programs.
10 Exam fees cover the cost -- the SAT exam fees
11 and all of our exam fees cover the cost of
12 developing the exams; administering and scoring the
13 exams; and, also, allows to provide more than
14 $100 million in programs and services without charge
15 to students, including, last year, $53 million in
16 test-fee waivers and test-fee subsidies that enabled
17 every low-income student -- for example, here in
18 New York -- to take the SAT program at no cost.
19 In fact, 43,000 students in New York State
20 took the SAT at no cost -- that's more than a
21 quarter of all SAT takers in the state -- because
22 they qualify as, free- and reduced-lunch students.
23 So, we're proud of the fact that all
24 low-income students can take our tests at very
25 little or no cost.
19
1 And to your point, Mr. Chairman, we also
2 take this matter very seriously. We find cheating
3 of any kind to be reprehensible.
4 We want to support the students who play by
5 the rules, the large majority of which, and who have
6 college dreams and aspirations.
7 And that's why we're eager to work
8 collaboratively with you on the legislation.
9 And if invited during this hearing, we do
10 have comments on the legislation we'd love to share
11 with you in a preliminary way.
12 As a mission-driven organization, we're
13 committed to ensuring that every student has access
14 to our programs. So, we are mindful that every
15 well-intentioned solution to a particular problem
16 may carry with it unintended consequences that could
17 discourage a student from pursuing his or her
18 college dreams, especially low-income students; or
19 students whose parents didn't go to college, and who
20 may find the college application and admission
21 process particularly vexing for them.
22 The College Board was created, and exists to
23 this day, to create opportunities, not barriers, for
24 college. And because of our commitment to equity,
25 we're determined not to let a student's concerns
20
1 about privacy, complexity, and convenience stand in
2 the way of college opportunity.
3 Now, as we are considering our changes to
4 security protocol, we want to take note of the fact
5 that the College Board and ETS are not
6 law-enforcement agencies.
7 We will continue to share information and
8 cooperate with law-enforcement officers, as we're
9 doing now in Nassau County. But, with no power
10 ourselves to subpoena witnesses, or prosecute
11 alleged offenders, we can't act as a court of law.
12 In the end, it's the responsibility of local
13 law enforcement to take legal action.
14 Again, we're deeply committed to working with
15 the law-enforcement agencies, and are already doing
16 so.
17 As you know, for the last three months, we've
18 been working through potential test-security
19 enhancements with the Freeh Group International
20 Solutions, LLC.
21 The Freeh Group is an independent global risk
22 management firm founded by Louis J. Freeh, former
23 director of the FBI, and a former federal judge.
24 And any actions we take -- we think this is
25 the perfect group to work with. Any actions we take
21
1 must meet the highest standards for global security,
2 because this test is administered in 170 countries.
3 So, we think we took the right step in
4 working with this powerful and prestigious group.
5 And our work is in collaboration with them. We're
6 not waiting for them to study us and prepare a
7 report.
8 They will prepare a report, which we will
9 share with this Committee; but, we're working hand
10 in hand with them to develop solutions, some of
11 which are already underway, and I'm going to talk
12 about in just a moment.
13 I do want to say, many of the issues that
14 have been raised in -- over the course of the past
15 three months do appear easy to overcome.
16 It's been suggested:
17 That we require a government-issued photo ID
18 card because of the issue of high school IDs;
19 That we require government-issued ID for
20 every student.
21 We acknowledge that a school ID, by itself,
22 is not sufficient in most cases. But we also know
23 that large populations of students don't have
24 government-issued IDs, and it's a burden on them to
25 get one.
22
1 This is unacceptable to us.
2 And I know -- I -- we took note of your
3 Committee meeting on January 10th. We watched the
4 video, and we saw you all debating many of the same
5 issues we're debating.
6 Again, that's why we're eager to have
7 conversations with you over time.
8 SENATOR LAVALLE: And we came to a resolution
9 very quickly, as you know.
10 THOMAS RUDIN: Yes.
11 And, again, we're eager to talk with you
12 about your bill.
13 Someone suggested we should simply require
14 students to take the exam in their own test center.
15 But, with only 7,000 registered test centers
16 worldwide, and more than 30,000 high schools, that's
17 not possible.
18 Others have argued that we should photograph
19 every student on test day by simply distributing
20 small cameras to every test center. But, we would
21 need to resolve logistical difficulties as we think
22 that through.
23 Other test-day security measures have been
24 suggested, such as, fingerprinting, and biometric
25 scanning, that would add to the check-in process.
23
1 And, that might cause significant intrusions
2 on privacy, with respect to collecting and securing
3 and managing the data around student biometrics.
4 So, I raise these concerns, not to take
5 anything off the table. We understand that all
6 options need to be available, as you considered in
7 your January 10th meeting. But, we raise these to
8 suggest that we're taking this very seriously, and
9 needing to weigh increased security against
10 increased access to the test.
11 Now, at the last hearing, there was a
12 discussion of the immediate near-term and long-term
13 solutions.
14 And I'm happy to say, we have some that we
15 will discuss now with you, and happy to elaborate on
16 in the Q and A.
17 First, we have already begun providing
18 additional enhanced training, messaging, and
19 information to all test-center supervisors, that
20 focuses exclusively on test security that gets to
21 this issue of having a secured test-administration
22 site, including, for example -- and, again, we can
23 elaborate on this -- new training modules on test
24 security delivered to all of our test-center
25 supervisors; and, also, new protocols for checking
24
1 student IDs at the sites.
2 Second: We're providing additional
3 information to high schools, colleges, and all other
4 score recipients, on the role that they play in
5 ensuring test integrity.
6 For example: We have notified colleges,
7 universities, the NCAA, and others, about their role
8 in identifying testing irregularities.
9 Our theme here is, basically: If you see
10 something, say something. Let us know if there are
11 irregularities you're coming across. Be our
12 partners in working this through.
13 Third: ETS has been conducting post-test
14 analysis that further enhances our ability to
15 identify potential impersonation cases.
16 And, we'll talk more about that.
17 Fourth: I'm happy to let the Committee know
18 that, today, beginning in the fall, each test taker
19 who is currently enrolled in more than one of 30,000
20 high schools -- who is enrolled in one of
21 30,000 high schools that are registered with the
22 College Board, must designate that high school as
23 part of the SAT registration process, so that we can
24 communicate back to the high school, the scores of
25 that student, and any correspondence with the
25
1 student, regarding the SAT, and, even any
2 irregularities regarding that.
3 So, we are beginning to take steps.
4 Other steps are on the way. All options are
5 on the table.
6 And let me conclude by saying: That, we
7 started to take initial steps. Much more work needs
8 to be done.
9 We believe we are close to designing a
10 solution that will address the issues that we have
11 seen with test-taker impersonation, that can be
12 absorbed into the existing cost of the SAT.
13 But, until we finalize our plans, and they've
14 been validated by the Freeh Group, we can't discuss
15 all of the options we're weighing now.
16 We would love, again, to have a conversation
17 with the Committee, as we think this through. And,
18 we will share the Freeh report with the Committee.
19 Let me finally say: Mr. Chairman, and
20 members of the Committee, we share your deep
21 commitment to this issue, we respect the fact that
22 you're taking this on, and we're eager to work with
23 you, going forward.
24
25
26
1 SENATOR LAVALLE: Yeah.
2 Thank you.
3 Before we get to Ms. Juric, and I apologize
4 for mispronouncing your name before, and,
5 Mr. Nicosia: How much was spent on the Freeh
6 institute, his work?
7 THOMAS RUDIN: I don't know how much,
8 exactly, was spent on the Freeh Group, but none of
9 that funding is being passed on to students.
10 SENATOR LAVALLE: I understand, but, just a
11 guess.
12 THOMAS RUDIN: We'll get you that detailed
13 information.
14 SENATOR STAVISKY: They promised that at the
15 last hearing.
16 SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay.
17 The reason I ask that, and, uhm -- is that,
18 for no money, we had three citizens come forward,
19 and they're going to testify today, with
20 methodologies that -- I don't know, I'm not an
21 expert, but, on its face, looks pretty good, as a
22 methodology.
23 So -- and this Committee didn't spend a dime
24 to do it. We just said: Citizens, come forward,
25 and say, "Hey, we got some things. Can we testify?"
27
1 And I thought it would be a great
2 opportunity.
3 Certainly, we're not promoting any one
4 method, and -- nor is the Committee going to adopt
5 in legislation, any one method. But, we thought it
6 would be good for you folks to see what three
7 citizens have developed. And, maybe it works,
8 doesn't work.
9 Who do you want to have testify?
10 THOMAS RUDIN: Yeah, I'd simply say: We're
11 eager to hear the testimony of the others.
12 We've gotten a number of ideas.
13 We don't apologize for securing the services
14 of the Freeh Group because we think they're a great
15 organization. None of the costs will be passed on
16 to students through these [unintelligible].
17 We can assure you of that.
18 But we want to make absolutely sure that we
19 have this world-class firm working with us, to test
20 through all of the options available to us.
21 So, we are eager to hear about the ideas that
22 will come up later, yes, sir.
23 SENATOR LAVALLE: Who do you want to testify
24 next?
25 RAYMOND NICOSIA: ETS is in support of the
28
1 College Board testimony. We're not going to be
2 issuing a separate statement.
3 KATHRYN JURIC: I didn't have a prepared
4 statement. Just to answer questions, and answers --
5 and to reaffirm that we were extremely committed to
6 this effort, and our evaluatable [sic] options are
7 on the table.
8 SENATOR LAVALLE: Basically, you guys are
9 security blankets for Mr. Rudin?
10 [Laughter.]
11 THOMAS RUDIN: These are the experts in the
12 day-to-day grind of how to secure these tests.
13 SENATOR LAVALLE: I had hoped that principals
14 would have been here.
15 One thing the Committee would like is, uhm,
16 we have the 2009 results from your filings.
17 Do we have more recent?
18 You know, up until 2011, would be
19 appreciated, so that the Committee --
20 THOMAS RUDIN: Yes, sir.
21 SENATOR LAVALLE: -- so the Committee can see
22 that.
23 I'm going to let Senator Zeldin here -- I
24 have other questions, but I'm going to let
25 Senator Zeldin; and then, you, Senator Stavisky; and
29
1 I'll finish it up.
2 SENATOR ZELDIN: When we had the meeting on
3 Long Island, we were discussing a little bit
4 about -- well, if I could refer you to the last
5 paragraph on page 2 of your testimony, Mr. Rudin,
6 you know, you say:
7 "As we consider changes to security
8 protocols, it's important to take into account the
9 fact the College Board and ETS are not
10 law-enforcement agencies."
11 So, this came up when we were in Long Island,
12 and we were discussing just how many tests are
13 canceled out because of irregularities.
14 And, uhm, if you could just refresh my
15 recollection: What's the number of tests that are
16 canceled out due to the irregularities?
17 Can you explain that?
18 RAYMOND NICOSIA: Certainly, Senator.
19 There's two tracks, if I may put it that way.
20 We have, what we call, "The Supervisor
21 Irregularity Report."
22 That's the eyewitness account from one of our
23 testing staff; one of our proctors. They've
24 observed something.
25 So that could be, stopping someone at the
30
1 door with a questionable ID. It could be seeing
2 someone with a cell phone during the test. It could
3 be seeing someone working on the wrong section.
4 So, it's something observed at the test
5 center.
6 And if you like, I can give you the exact
7 numbers.
8 For last testing year, that would be the
9 year, 2010-2011, we had 6,339 such cases reported to
10 my office. Out of that, we canceled the scores for
11 2,533.
12 So, those are the cases that were canceled
13 based on those eyewitness reports.
14 That's one track.
15 There's another post analysis that we do --
16 post-test analysis.
17 You heard me mention things, such as a large
18 score difference, as a trigger, to bring cases to my
19 office to review afterwards.
20 And, there's a few other triggers that will
21 bring that cases to my office; but, in the post-test
22 analysis, for last year, we had 3,222 such cases
23 come into my office. And out of that, we canceled
24 935 scores.
25 Those numbers are fairly consistent year to
31
1 year: 3,000 or so being questioned. About 1,000
2 being canceled.
3 SENATOR ZELDIN: Okay, so, if someone's
4 cheating on a test, it's possible that they may fall
5 into one or both of these two categories?
6 RAYMOND NICOSIA: Correct, sir.
7 SENATOR ZELDIN: Okay, is there overlap?
8 I mean, are -- is there someone that might be
9 targeted in track one and track two? Or --
10 RAYMOND NICOSIA: No, these are separate
11 cases.
12 SENATOR ZELDIN: Okay, so, it would be,
13 roughly, 10,000 -- approximately -- just under
14 10,000, total --
15 RAYMOND NICOSIA: Correct.
16 SENATOR ZELDIN: -- [unintelligible.]
17 RAYMOND NICOSIA: Correct.
18 SENATOR ZELDIN: So, your statement,
19 Mr. Rudin, about how you're not law-enforcement
20 agencies, which, I mean, I think everyone would
21 certainly agree with, there's just under
22 10,000 cases of irregularities from both tracks,
23 which lead you to cancel test scores for,
24 approximately, just under 30 -- around 3,500 --
25 RAYMOND NICOSIA: About 3,500.
32
1 SENATOR ZELDIN: -- across the country.
2 RAYMOND NICOSIA: World.
3 SENATOR ZELDIN: Across the world -- around
4 the word.
5 Do happen to know the numbers for New York,
6 by the way?
7 RAYMOND NICOSIA: No, sir.
8 SENATOR ZELDIN: Okay.
9 So, 3,500 test takers around the world, the
10 scores are canceled.
11 When we were in -- when we were on
12 Long Island and we were discussing this topic, the
13 question was asked, and now that it's been a few
14 months, maybe you've had a chance to reflect on the
15 question: What's the standard that your
16 organizations have to turn over those canceled
17 scores to the law-enforcement agencies?
18 RAYMOND NICOSIA: Basically, we just process
19 the cases, so we aren't -- we don't see a standard
20 for us as to when we're compelled to turn over this
21 information.
22 We're looking to ensure the validity of the
23 scores. We don't, in essence, have to prove
24 cheating on our cases.
25 For instance: In the post-test analysis, we
33
1 are -- we're basically looking for two bits of
2 compelling evidence; such as, a large score
3 difference, and, combined with a handwriting
4 difference.
5 That allows us to question the score. And
6 then we give the students a series of options to
7 resolve the matter.
8 Those options are supported by state law, as
9 well as the industry standards, on how to question
10 test scores.
11 SENATOR ZELDIN: So -- but what's your -- how
12 do you determine whether or not to turn over a
13 canceled score to a law-enforcement agency?
14 RAYMOND NICOSIA: It is extremely rare that
15 we do go to law enforcement.
16 When we do see something we feel has crossed
17 the line, in the SAT world, very few, a handful of
18 cases, would have actually gone to law enforcement.
19 The case in question, here in New York area,
20 there were signed confessions, we were informed
21 about. There were -- there was money changing
22 hands.
23 In this particular case, we did approach law
24 enforcement. We did not get a warm reception.
25 Unfortunately, that is somewhat indicative of
34
1 cases when we've gone to law enforcement for similar
2 cases. There's not a great deal of interest.
3 SENATOR ZELDIN: So, in my opinion, the
4 integrity --
5 Mr. Rudin, were you going to say something?
6 THOMAS RUDIN: I simply wanted to say, I
7 understand your concern about the issue of us being
8 a law-enforcement agency.
9 We're not that.
10 I mean, I didn't make that statement to be
11 flip about it.
12 One of the questions we have about the
13 legislation, and we'd love to talk to you about this
14 in greater detail, is the idea that what you may be
15 proposing is asking us to step into the role of a
16 law-enforcement agency and determining whether a
17 crime has been committed.
18 SENATOR ZELDIN: No, but before -- okay.
19 Before we change the topic, I mean, my
20 question is: With regards to what your current
21 standard is for turning over canceled scores to
22 law-enforcement agencies.
23 I'm not asking about the legislation, or,
24 what kind of changes should be implemented.
25 I'm just trying to understand what the
35
1 current standard is because, what we read about --
2 you know, on Long Island, we read in "News Day," and
3 we see on "News 12," and then we have the New York
4 City TV stations pick it up. And, all of a sudden,
5 everyone's talking about this huge SAT cheating
6 scandal in Nassau County.
7 The integrity of the process is obviously
8 questioned once you end up having this huge media
9 story that breaks out from one isolated incident,
10 albeit, it wasn't one particular student that
11 cheated, but, it was a grand scheme.
12 Now, I'm interested in what else is going on
13 that we haven't read about in the newspaper.
14 And I believe that your two organizations are
15 in the best, and possibly the only position, to be
16 able to bring to light all of the other cases of
17 cheating that's taking place.
18 Now, if the organizations only cancel the
19 scores out, and, on a very rare case, turns that
20 over to law enforcement, what that unfortunately
21 results in is, now, for that student, the parent,
22 the schools, the law-enforcement agencies, we never
23 even become privy to the fact that cheating's even
24 taking place.
25 The only way that we're ever going to find
36
1 out, is if you tell us.
2 And the only reason why we know about what
3 happened in Nassau County, was because we read about
4 it in the paper, and then it became a huge issue,
5 and now you're cooperating with law-enforcement
6 agencies.
7 So, we're discuss what kind of changes should
8 be made, legislatively.
9 Whereas, I said in my opening, what I ideally
10 would like to see, is for the organizations, the
11 industry, for those that are administering it
12 themselves, to be able to bring more accountability
13 to the test, and not for anyone else to have to do
14 it for the organizations.
15 Both, the concern that I had when we met on
16 Long Island, and I asked the same exact question,
17 and I got the feeling that there really wasn't much
18 of a standard; and, that, on a rare case, are those
19 tests turned over to law-enforcement agencies.
20 And I'm asking you the question again, now.
21 I understand that you're not law-enforcement
22 agencies. I wouldn't ever want you to become one.
23 But, you stated that your policy to others
24 that are administering a test, is, "If you see
25 something, say something."
37
1 But, then, you see stuff, and then you don't
2 say anything.
3 So, if those that are supposed to administer
4 the test are supposed to follow the policy of
5 "If you see something, say something," I think that
6 it should be the policy of those administering the
7 tests, such as yourself, to be telling us, be
8 telling the law enforcement, because, if you see
9 something, you should be saying something.
10 And then we'll have a little bit more
11 confidence that we know what's really taking place.
12 SENATOR LAVALLE: Mr. Rudin, are you
13 familiar with what happened at Penn State?
14 THOMAS RUDIN: Yes, sir.
15 SENATOR LAVALLE: The rules changed. A good
16 and decent man didn't go far enough. He didn't
17 report it to the authorities.
18 New -- new standard.
19 We have a new standard: You can't -- you
20 can't close your eyes.
21 Senator Zeldin's right.
22 When you read that, three derrieres went off
23 their seats. "Three."
24 It -- Senator Zeldin covered it, what was
25 said in Farmingdale; but I would say to you, that,
38
1 we're in a new -- we're in a new era.
2 And it happened at Penn State. Happened at
3 Syracuse.
4 New rules.
5 And if we need to, in our legislation, spell
6 that out more clearly, well, we will do that if
7 people are looking for legal standards.
8 But we're in a new arena, sir.
9 We're in a new arena.
10 SENATOR ROBACH: And could I just say, I have
11 a concern.
12 I don't think reporting the information to
13 the right authority makes you law enforcement. I
14 think that just makes them aware of it.
15 Because, I mean, I hate to say this, and
16 nobody knows how big it is: I think we're all
17 shocked by the dollar amount offered to take this
18 particular test.
19 But, clearly, there is no stigma, or no fear,
20 in today's world of people doing that. Nor, my
21 guess would be, that they're really even violating
22 anything -- any major.
23 In order for us to put that word out, to put
24 the integrity back in, we all have to be in it
25 together.
39
1 So, I don't think -- we know what you do and
2 what your area of expertise is; however, you are the
3 gatekeeper of who takes the test.
4 When you see that, just to let it go, that
5 kid's going to say, or whoever did that: Well, we
6 didn't get through this time. Let's go back and try
7 it again. What's the big deal?
8 If it's turned over, or at least looked at or
9 reviewed by, if you want to call it, law
10 enforcement, a DA, or the right governing authority,
11 then I think it would be a great deterrent, and
12 might almost be the most critical piece of the bill,
13 if our goal is: We want people to take the test,
14 but put the word out there that we aren't going to
15 allow that to happen anymore.
16 You know, and not to digress or talk too
17 much, you know, when I was in school, there was
18 classes where you take in a room, like this size,
19 with 100 people.
20 And people would do that. You know, the
21 general class, someone would take the -- literally,
22 take the test for them.
23 That night, at school, they said: If you get
24 caught doing that, you'll kicked out of school.
25 Everybody stopped doing it.
40
1 Now it's: We're going to study for that
2 class.
3 I think this is a little of the same, but, if
4 you aren't the ones to turn them over, who is going
5 to do it?
6 THOMAS RUDIN: May I respond? Because I
7 understand what you're saying. And, Senator, I
8 understand your point.
9 The question is not, Do we see things happen,
10 and then we don't report them?
11 What we do is, when we see testing
12 irregularities that we believe exist, we cancel the
13 student's score. But, we don't -- we're not a
14 law-enforcement agency that can prove beyond a
15 reasonable doubt that the student committed a crime;
16 and, therefore, need to inform law-enforcement
17 agencies of that.
18 SENATOR ZELDIN: Yeah, this exact thing came
19 up --
20 And I know, Senator Stavisky, I'm sorry, you
21 had a question; but, if I could just interject on
22 that, Chairman.
23 This exact point came up when we met on
24 Long Island, about proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
25 There are different standards of proof in our
41
1 system. And when someone goes to law enforcement,
2 they don't have to, in filing a -- you know, a
3 criminal complaint, or, bringing something up to the
4 attention of law-enforcement agencies, they don't
5 have to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt.
6 Sometimes issues come up before
7 law-enforcement agencies where there might be
8 probable cause or reasonable suspicion;
9 Sometimes stuff brought to a law-enforcement
10 agency where there's a hunch.
11 So -- but you don't have to establish beyond
12 a reasonable doubt in order to turn it over to law
13 enforcement.
14 THOMAS RUDIN: No, I understand.
15 I didn't mean to -- I misspoke, if that's
16 what I conveyed.
17 It's not a question of, we have to prove a
18 crime was committed before we do anything. I get
19 that.
20 When we believe there was a criminal act
21 committed, such as impersonation, we do notify law
22 enforcement.
23 The large majority of the -- the large
24 majority of the cases outlined in Mr. Nicosia's
25 numbers, are not impersonation cases. They are --
42
1 they range from, a student copying over the shoulder
2 from their neighbor, to other cheating cases that
3 don't go to the standard of breaking the law.
4 So, when we believe a law has been broken, we
5 do notify law enforcement.
6 The significant number of these cases are not
7 in that category.
8 So, I understand.
9 SENATOR LAVALLE: Yep, the standard is
10 significant evidence, in Section 344-B.
11 THOMAS RUDIN: Correct.
12 SENATOR LAVALLE: And in our legislation,
13 we've carried the same.
14 And in the legislation, we've clarified, so
15 that you -- you should have a clear road map, as to
16 what you should be doing, and when you should be
17 doing that.
18 I just want to introduce new members that
19 have come, before Senator Stavisky: Senator Rivera,
20 Senator Maziarz, Senator Carlucci, and
21 Senator Griffo.
22 I just want to make a comment, that, having
23 this many members at a hearing is -- shows the
24 importance.
25 If you saw the Higher Ed meeting, we had
43
1 almost 100 percent attendance at that Committee
2 meeting.
3 So, it shows you that the commitment of the
4 Committee, and the severity of this issue.
5 So, Senator Stavisky.
6 SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes, I -- when you
7 testified that you're not a law-enforcement agency,
8 we just looked at each other.
9 THOMAS RUDIN: I saw your body language.
10 SENATOR STAVISKY: Yeah, exactly.
11 We were sort of surprised to hear that,
12 because I assume you have security people, or people
13 with a law-enforcement background, in your office?
14 RAYMOND NICOSIA: We work with our legal
15 department.
16 And my office is called "The Office of
17 Testing Integrity." And, so, we do confer with our
18 legal office. I report to the general counsel.
19 SENATOR STAVISKY: But, you don't have a
20 law-enforcement background?
21 RAYMOND NICOSIA: I personally do not have a
22 law-enforcement background.
23 SENATOR STAVISKY: But --
24 SENATOR LAVALLE: "Do"?
25 SENATOR STAVISKY: "Do not."
44
1 RAYMOND NICOSIA: Do not, sir.
2 SENATOR STAVISKY: You indicated,
3 Mr. Rudin, that -- in your testimony, that you
4 didn't get a warm reception -- that was the phrase
5 that I wrote down -- from the law enforcement
6 officials when you reported evidence of cheating,
7 presumably.
8 Could you explain what you meant by that?
9 THOMAS RUDIN: I don't believe I said that.
10 SENATOR STAVISKY: I think -- you didn't
11 say --
12 RAYMOND NICOSIA: I said that.
13 SENATOR STAVISKY: Oh, you --
14 I'm sorry.
15 RAYMOND NICOSIA: No problem.
16 In the particular case here in New York, we
17 did place phone calls to the two counties in
18 question.
19 We did list the evidence, as we knew it.
20 We asked that, if there was interest.
21 And we were told, they would get back to us
22 if they were interested.
23 SENATOR STAVISKY: District attorney, or the
24 police?
25 RAYMOND NICOSIA: No, this was the local
45
1 police.
2 SENATOR STAVISKY: The local police?
3 RAYMOND NICOSIA: Yes.
4 SENATOR STAVISKY: Not the DA's office?
5 RAYMOND NICOSIA: No, ma'am.
6 SENATOR STAVISKY: A couple of other
7 questions.
8 In your testimony -- whoops.
9 In your testimony, you stated that you're now
10 going to have -- this college will -- the
11 College Board will be required to designate that
12 school as part of the SAT registration process.
13 Does that mean, that if there are any of
14 these "track one" and "track two" exams that are
15 questioned, that they are going be reported to the
16 schools?
17 KATHRYN JURIC: Hi.
18 Yes, the process change that we'd be making,
19 this enhancement, would be, that during the
20 registration process, students will be required to
21 enter their high school.
22 And that means that, following their scores,
23 and additional correspondence and information, would
24 be sent to their schools.
25 SENATOR STAVISKY: In other words: The fact
46
1 that the score was canceled, will -- the school will
2 be notified?
3 KATHRYN JURIC: Yes.
4 SENATOR STAVISKY: What about the colleges to
5 which they applied?
6 KATHRYN JURIC: That is the current process;
7 that the colleges to which they applied are
8 notified.
9 RAYMOND NICOSIA: If -- let me just jump in
10 here.
11 Based on -- overwhelmingly, most of the
12 scores are not reported per se. We put them on
13 hold.
14 If it's a test-day infraction, the score is
15 put on hold. It's never released to the attending
16 high school or the college.
17 Nor -- so, you know -- so -- and if it's a
18 post-test analysis, we put the score on hold right
19 away, if it's "a large" or "difference" trigger.
20 So, those scores are never, technically, sent
21 out anywhere. We investigate.
22 If we canceled the score, it is taken off the
23 record. It is acted like it did not take place.
24 SENATOR STAVISKY: And then the student can,
25 for the next time the test is given, take it again?
47
1 RAYMOND NICOSIA: Yes, they can.
2 SENATOR STAVISKY: So there's really no -- no
3 oversight here.
4 One other -- one last question.
5 You talked about track one and track two of
6 the questionable scores.
7 The -- I don't know if I got the numbers
8 right; but, basically, it was about 6,300 cases, and
9 2,500 cancellations.
10 And, 3,000 questioned on the second track,
11 and 935 canceled.
12 How -- and I gather, none of them were
13 impersonation cases?
14 RAYMOND NICOSIA: No.
15 We, uhm -- out of the first track, about --
16 out of those 2,533 scores that were canceled, about
17 700 of those were people turned away at the door, at
18 the test center, for questionable ID.
19 SENATOR STAVISKY: But there's no further
20 follow up; they just aren't able to continue to do
21 that someplace else?
22 RAYMOND NICOSIA: That is our process today.
23 We turn them away, and their scores are --
24 there's no score for them that day.
25 SENATOR STAVISKY: Now, at the Farmingdale
48
1 hearing, I asked the extent of the impersonation
2 problem, and, I really didn't get a concrete answer.
3 Can you tell me how many cases there are of
4 students paying somebody to go take the test for
5 them?
6 RAYMOND NICOSIA: I cannot answer that. I
7 don't know.
8 I -- the -- what happened in Long Island,
9 they -- large sum of money, the confessions, that is
10 an aberration, uhm, to get that much information.
11 That's not our normal flow for information
12 that we receive.
13 Our normal flow of information is, that we
14 trigger an investigation, from such things as a
15 large score difference. We do an investigation in
16 my office. We look at the handwriting differences.
17 And if we have inconsistent handwriting, we
18 then question the score. The student has rights
19 about taking retests, and such.
20 But, to give you at least a number: Out of
21 those 935 cases that we canceled, 138 of those were
22 for impersonation.
23 Now, I don't know if money changed hands.
24 All we have, our evidence to question the test
25 score: large score difference, handwriting
49
1 difference, we questioned, and those scores were
2 eventually canceled.
3 SENATOR STAVISKY: But there was no follow up
4 in any way, as far as the student was concerned?
5 RAYMOND NICOSIA: The school --
6 SENATOR STAVISKY: Not referred to any law
7 enforcement?
8 RAYMOND NICOSIA: No. The school would just
9 cancel the score.
10 SENATOR STAVISKY: In other words: Have you
11 ever reported impersonation cases, such as what
12 occurred in Nassau County, to the law-enforcement
13 agencies?
14 RAYMOND NICOSIA: From the SAT, no.
15 This was -- it was an aberration.
16 SENATOR STAVISKY: This is the first time?
17 It's never occurred? It never happened
18 before?
19 RAYMOND NICOSIA: For the SAT, yes.
20 SENATOR STAVISKY: For the SAT, nobody has
21 ever paid somebody, in the past, to go take a test?
22 RAYMOND NICOSIA: I -- I'm not saying
23 that's -- that no one's ever been paid.
24 I'm saying, we don't have the information,
25 like what took place in Long Island, with the
50
1 signed -- with the confessions.
2 That is not information we normally obtain.
3 SENATOR LAVALLE: Mr. Nicosia, one of the
4 things that has come out of all of this, I meet more
5 people on the streets here in Albany, say -- they
6 chuckle first, as I just did.
7 SENATOR STAVISKY: Yeah.
8 SENATOR LAVALLE: And then they say: You
9 know, this has been going on forever!
10 And it's not a Nassau County problem. It's
11 not a New York State problem.
12 It's a national problem.
13 And we can't put our heads in the sand, and
14 say: You know, this is not going on.
15 I think Senator Zeldin zealously pursued
16 questioning from Farmingdale, because, in the
17 interim, people have been saying to us: You know
18 this kind of -- these things have been going on.
19 And you're -- as an agency, just very
20 nonchalant-like, Well, you know, we got a couple of
21 people here, we got a couple of people there.
22 It's not so.
23 KATHRYN JURIC: If I -- can I make a couple
24 of comments?
25 SENATOR LAVALLE: Uhm -- okay.
51
1 Are you finished?
2 SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes.
3 SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator Griffo?
4 SENATOR GRIFFO: Yes.
5 We all know that times change, society
6 evolves, problems are unique to each period.
7 Would you say, historically -- just from what
8 I'm hearing right now, that, historically, you've
9 had problems?
10 THOMAS RUDIN: Is this over -- cheating
11 problems?
12 RAYMOND NICOSIA: Yes.
13 Consistently, over our years, yes, there are
14 people who will copy on the test, people who will
15 have impersonators.
16 SENATOR GRIFFO: Now, do you believe they're
17 more severe --
18 SENATOR LAVALLE: Today.
19 SENATOR GRIFFO: -- the problems, and the
20 issues that we're talking about, raising today, that
21 the problems of cheating is more severe today, and
22 there are newer ways that they're attempting to
23 cheat?
24 Do you acknowledge that that's the case?
25 RAYMOND NICOSIA: Yes, Senator. Obviously,
52
1 things, such as cell phones, make our life more
2 challenging.
3 SENATOR GRIFFO: So, do you believe now, that
4 you possess the responsibilities, and are taking the
5 necessary actions to reflect those new challenges?
6 RAYMOND NICOSIA: Yes, we've consistently
7 enhanced our security procedures year to year.
8 We're always upgrading some steps.
9 Obviously, now, working with the Freeh Group,
10 we've had some excellent discussions.
11 And, we're looking forward to some more
12 enhancements in the future.
13 KATHRYN JURIC: If I could add: Yes, we are
14 working on a comprehensive solution with the
15 Freeh Group.
16 And our plan is, to implement the solution by
17 the 2012-2013 testing year; and, a comprehensive
18 solution that would specifically deal with
19 addressing the impersonation challenge that we have.
20 SENATOR GRIFFO: So that's one element.
21 I mean, are you prepared to elaborate on some
22 of the things that you actually are going to do?
23 Because, it appears that you're inadequate to
24 reflect the new demands and challenges that you
25 face, as society has changed, when you look at the
53
1 use of the new technology that's available.
2 Can you elaborate with what you're looking to
3 do?
4 KATHRYN JURIC: In terms of the work that
5 we're doing with the Freeh Group, we are evaluating
6 the variety of options. We believe we're close to
7 designing a solution.
8 But we're -- we're -- it would be premature
9 for us to share that information, until we have
10 fully worked through the legal and the operational
11 implications. These are complicated matters.
12 And, so, we want to share, that we are very
13 committed to this, and we are close to designing a
14 solution.
15 SENATOR GRIFFO: Are you prepared to live and
16 accept new regulations that may exist in
17 New York State, as a result of what has taken place,
18 and what we believe has been a failure to address
19 some of the concerns and issues that have arisen?
20 THOMAS RUDIN: Senator, I'm going to --
21 regarding your question about new technology
22 presenting new challenges, yes, we do need to keep
23 up with that. You're exactly right.
24 We do believe that we will never totally
25 eliminate cheating from the SAT 100 percent of time.
54
1 We do believe we're approaching a solution in
2 which we can eradicate impersonation cases.
3 And when that information comes up, we'll
4 share it with the Committee in a confidential
5 report, immediately. But, we actually believe we're
6 on the track to eradicating that particular kind of
7 cheating, as we saw most recently.
8 SENATOR GRIFFO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9 SENATOR LAVALLE: Mr. Nicosia, have you
10 ever had staff that has brought the seriousness of
11 what is going on, in terms of cheating,
12 impersonation, the scope of this problem, to the
13 attention -- to your attentions, or predecessor, or
14 supervisor in your unit?
15 RAYMOND NICOSIA: We get impersonation cases
16 regularly after each administration, but, we've had
17 nothing like this case here in Long Island.
18 As I said, this is a total aberration to have
19 something like this.
20 The normal impersonation cases, we don't --
21 there was no interview of students.
22 This information came to us, as you know,
23 from the principal, which is one of our triggers.
24 The principal filed, what we call "an external
25 inquiry."
55
1 We did the analysis we could do in our
2 office, and we canceled scores, and gave students
3 options afterwards, after the principal gave us the
4 external inquiry.
5 But, Senator, we've never had a case like
6 this, with the sums of money changing hands.
7 SENATOR LAVALLE: No, but, staff -- your
8 staff in your unit, have they brought to your
9 attention that this may have been going on at a
10 grander level than you were aware of?
11 No staffers --
12 RAYMOND NICOSIA: I mean, we always discuss
13 what we see.
14 If we see large number of impersonations, for
15 instance, at the one test center, what we try and do
16 is, we might visit that center, and say: Are you
17 checking IDs properly?
18 This is a study that we will then do.
19 So, we try to monitor all of our test centers
20 for, uhm -- when they have a certain number of
21 violations, we address it. We go out to the test
22 center and see what the problem is.
23 But we have -- no one's ever brought anything
24 to me like this --
25 SENATOR LAVALLE: I ask that you that
56
1 question because, the next person to testify, is
2 Mr. Maiselson.
3 And -- so, he worked for Prometric. An
4 employee of Prometric.
5 RAYMOND NICOSIA: Yes.
6 SENATOR LAVALLE: And, uhm, I don't know what
7 he's going to testify, but I --
8 RAYMOND NICOSIA: As I said, we were focusing
9 here on the SAT.
10 We have had group investigations,
11 impersonation rings, with our graduate-level tests,
12 which I've taken to law enforcement, and there have
13 been convictions on that track.
14 SENATOR LAVALLE: You have, after that, made
15 significant changes to the GRE, LSAT --
16 RAYMOND NICOSIA: Well, we --
17 SENATOR LAVALLE: -- in terms of dealing with
18 cheating issues?
19 RAYMOND NICOSIA: Yes. It's a different
20 tool.
21 We administer the TOFL and the GRE in a
22 computer-based setting, which is entirely different
23 model than paper-based setting.
24 So, there's different things we could do.
25 Those are brick-and-mortar test centers, open
57
1 seven days a week, so we have different security
2 procedures we follow there.
3 SENATOR LAVALLE: Are you involved in the
4 LSAT?
5 RAYMOND NICOSIA: No, sir.
6 SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay.
7 Mr. Rudin, if you could give to the
8 Committee, by the end of the week, your written
9 input on the legislation, we would appreciate it.
10 THOMAS RUDIN: Yes, sir. Happy to do so.
11 SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay, thank you.
12 Thank you very much.
13 Next person to testify, is Steven Maiselson,
14 former Prometric employee, which is a subsidiary of
15 ETS.
16 STEVEN MAISELSON: Good afternoon, Senator.
17 SENATOR LAVALLE: Mr. Maiselson, welcome.
18 STEVEN MAISELSON: Thank you.
19 SENATOR LAVALLE: The floor is yours.
20 STEVEN MAISELSON: Well you've all read my
21 testimony and my statement, and others that --
22 SENATOR LAVALLE: Can you speak up nice and
23 loudly so people can hear you.
24 STEVEN MAISELSON: You've all read my
25 testimony and my statement, and I'm sure everyone
58
1 had a chance to review it. If not, maybe at another
2 point.
3 Just to kind of summarize what's happened up
4 to this point, and what the people who were just up
5 here with ETS and the College Board has said: I
6 think that they're on the right track right now, as
7 far as what they're looking to accomplish with
8 what's going on out there in the test-security
9 marketplace, and the situation that's happening out
10 there.
11 I also think that what you're doing,
12 legislatively, is a lot of the right moves.
13 And like I said my in statement, what many of
14 the DAs are doing across the state, and also
15 across the country, what the examples that you're
16 going to send, are going to make an impact on what
17 happens, and what these companies decide.
18 SENATOR LAVALLE: When you left Prometric,
19 did you sign some sort of non-disclosure agreement?
20 STEVEN MAISELSON: I did, yes. Absolutely.
21 SENATOR LAVALLE: You did?
22 STEVEN MAISELSON: Oh, of course.
23 SENATOR LAVALLE: Yeah, okay.
24 STEVEN MAISELSON: Everybody signs one there,
25 sure.
59
1 SENATOR LAVALLE: So, based on that, uhm -- I
2 mean, I didn't see anything here in your testimony,
3 either in letter dated January the 19th --
4 STEVEN MAISELSON: Right.
5 SENATOR LAVALLE: -- or the information
6 attached, beginning in July 6, 2011.
7 STEVEN MAISELSON: Right.
8 Those are -- all of those attachments that I
9 sent you, really, just information for yourselves.
10 That article on the 6th really addresses some
11 of the security interests that McGraw Hill is
12 looking to focus on. And they were talking about
13 how they were going to put out white paper and
14 policy information.
15 I think that might be good information for
16 this group, and maybe also for the other people that
17 are involved with this at this time.
18 SENATOR LAVALLE: I had the feeling, but not
19 directly, that you felt that people were not paying
20 attention to some of the loopholes that were going
21 on out in the highways and byways of test taking.
22 Is that a good observation?
23 STEVEN MAISELSON: I think that, when you
24 look at the test-taking environment, and you look
25 at, not just the SAT or the ACT or any of these
60
1 graduate-level exams, no matter where it is, that
2 many of these testing companies are up against a
3 really huge multi-headed monster, that's, um --
4 SENATOR LAVALLE: Describe the "multi-headed
5 monster."
6 STEVEN MAISELSON: It's the testing network
7 out there, that's looking to take that information
8 out, and give it out.
9 You know what I mean?
10 In the sense of --
11 SENATOR LAVALLE: No, I don't.
12 STEVEN MAISELSON: In the sense of, you know,
13 people who come in and do brain-dumping, or
14 brain-loading.
15 In other words: I'll go in, I'll learn
16 everything about the test, and then I'll just go and
17 put it out there.
18 And, that, of course, is a known thing. It
19 happens all the time. It's very difficult to catch.
20 It's very difficult to know who's doing that.
21 You know what I'm saying?
22 And an impersonation thing, you know, is
23 something that is very rare, that I've seen. It's
24 not something that happens a lot.
25 SENATOR LAVALLE: And how do you base that?
61
1 What kind of observation?
2 STEVEN MAISELSON: Well, just through the
3 years of doing administration, 90 percent of --
4 99 percent of people that come in are legitimately
5 coming in to take a test for that reason, and they
6 are that person.
7 SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay.
8 STEVEN MAISELSON: And, there are occasions,
9 where, you know, someone who is trying to skirt the
10 system, or is part of this huge network, that these
11 companies aren't aware of.
12 I mean, they're aware of it, but they don't
13 know who those people are.
14 And it's -- it's like a terrorist
15 organization that's out there; and you don't know
16 where they're coming from, and you don't know who
17 they are.
18 And, you don't know when they come in to take
19 your test.
20 You can change the test over time, multiple
21 times, but, the first day of the test, someone's
22 going to walk in the door, and get the answers to
23 the question of, 2 plus 2, and by the way, the
24 answer is 4.
25 And, they're going to go take that back, and
62
1 they're going to put it on-line, and they're going
2 to get paid for that.
3 And many administrators would never be able
4 to know who those people are.
5 And a lot of the things that happen in --
6 SENATOR LAVALLE: Are you talking about the
7 coaching schools having people there so that they
8 know what the test questions are?
9 STEVEN MAISELSON: I'm saying, that there's a
10 huge organization out there that just goes out, and
11 does nothing.
12 SENATOR LAVALLE: Well, can you -- I mean,
13 we're novices, so we don't know, when you say
14 "organization" --
15 STEVEN MAISELSON: "Organization" meaning,
16 like organized crime, like companies, like
17 individuals, that none of us know about --
18 SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay.
19 STEVEN MAISELSON: -- that I'm not privy to,
20 and I'm sure that many of these companies aren't
21 privy to as well, because, who knows who they are.
22 SENATOR LAVALLE: So, we have amorphous
23 organizations out there --
24 STEVEN MAISELSON: Sure.
25 SENATOR LAVALLE: -- that are planting people
63
1 in there, to take the test --
2 STEVEN MAISELSON: Absolutely.
3 SENATOR LAVALLE: -- bring back, 2 plus 2 is
4 4.
5 STEVEN MAISELSON: Whatever the question
6 is --
7 SENATOR LAVALLE: Whatever -- right, right.
8 STEVEN MAISELSON: Right.
9 SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay.
10 STEVEN MAISELSON: So to say, I --
11 SENATOR LAVALLE: This has been going on for
12 a while; right?
13 STEVEN MAISELSON: Ever since tests began, I
14 imagine.
15 SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay, right.
16 So, if someone knows that there is something
17 out there, wouldn't you begin to put up a defense
18 to -- to that?
19 STEVEN MAISELSON: Well, I mean, these
20 companies have to do a lot of defense.
21 There's cyber technology that's coming in, to
22 try and take those exams. There's people who come
23 into their testing centers.
24 You know, when you talk about the SAT or the
25 ACT, who are we looking at?
64
1 We're looking at administrators that are
2 teachers, and those teachers are there for a couple
3 of reasons.
4 One: They know those people every day.
5 If you hand me your ID, and I know that
6 you're in, you know, somebody's class, and I know
7 you, I see you in the hallway, I know who you are.
8 So, that's an advantage for the company to
9 have you there; so, you know who the people are that
10 are taking the test so that impersonation could be
11 reduced.
12 But, there's lots of other, you know, things
13 that they could do to make sure that they know
14 exactly who those people are before they sit down
15 and take the test.
16 SENATOR LAVALLE: I think we know that that's
17 been going on for a while, but they're doing that so
18 that they can do test prepping, is my guess.
19 STEVEN MAISELSON: I imagine so.
20 SENATOR LAVALLE: And -- but, here, we're
21 talking about you taking the test for me --
22 STEVEN MAISELSON: Correct.
23 SENATOR LAVALLE: -- so that I can have a
24 higher score.
25 Do you believe that that kind of thing has
65
1 been going on for a while?
2 STEVEN MAISELSON: Well, I don't see why
3 someone wouldn't want to try to impersonate somebody
4 else in order to take a test for financial gain, and
5 then give that information to a company who would
6 then put those questions out there.
7 It would probably be a better idea to be
8 somebody else when I took that test, except myself.
9 SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay.
10 Senator, Stavisky --
11 SENATOR STAVISKY: No, I have no questions.
12 SENATOR LAVALLE: -- Rivera?
13 No?
14 Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.
15 STEVEN MAISELSON: Sure.
16 SENATOR LAVALLE: Dr. Hayward.
17 James Hayward?
18 Jim Hayward is -- Dr. Hayward is chairman,
19 president, and CEO of Applied DNA Sciences.
20 Are we having a PowerPoint --
21 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: Yes.
22 SENATOR LAVALLE: -- presentation?
23 Okay.
24 Now, the -- starting off with Dr. Hayward;
25 And the next two individuals, they are going
66
1 to testify on how we can get into the
2 twenty-first century, in terms of, secured
3 administration, or having people on a card who is
4 that person.
5 Dr. Hayward.
6 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: Great.
7 Well, thank you very much, Chairman LaValle,
8 and members of the Higher Education Committee, for
9 providing me with the opportunity to testify today.
10 First, and foremost, I'd like to commend the
11 Chairman for taking the leadership role in regard to
12 this critical issue.
13 I'm honored to be here today, to share what I
14 believe is a viable solution that will secure the
15 SAT and standardized testing processes.
16 I'm president and CEO of Applied DNA
17 Sciences, "APDN," a public biotech company located
18 in the Long Island high-technology incubator on the
19 campus of Stony Brook.
20 I should point out, our company uses, from
21 the very beginning, botanical, plant-derived DNA;
22 that, none of our DNA is of human origin.
23 As a consequence, no privacy is sacrificed
24 for any test taker.
25 We use botanical DNA as a marker, to aid
67
1 law enforcement, to prevent counterfeiting, and as a
2 way to authenticate originality, identity, and
3 provenance.
4 I've supplied detailed information to you
5 about Applied DNA Sciences that can be found in my
6 submitted testimony that you'll be given, if you
7 don't have it already.
8 In respect to my allotted time, I will
9 carefully contain my oral comments. Additional
10 detail can be found in those documents.
11 [Slide being shown.]
12 As a biotechnology company, we are quite
13 unusual, in that, the outlet for our sciences is
14 entirely within the security industry.
15 We're an 8-year-old Long Island company,
16 originally attracted to Stony Brook University from
17 California by the strength of the Center for
18 Excellence in Wireless and Information Technology;
19 "CEWIT."
20 Developing a DNA-based security company on
21 Long Island makes perfect, and imminent sense, in
22 view of the longstanding heritage of
23 Cold Spring Harbor in the west, the University of
24 Stony Brook in the middle, and Brookhaven National
25 Laboratory.
68
1 We have a card, are well-known the globe
2 over, for DNA excellence. And it's a great, great
3 hiring pool.
4 [New slide being shown.]
5 We are, and consider ourselves, a serious
6 player for what you on the Committee clearly regard
7 as a serious problem.
8 We established ourselves as a formidable
9 high-tech foe of crime; first in Europe, and then in
10 the U.K.
11 In that marketplace, we have a 35 percent
12 market share protecting the movement of cash between
13 institutions every day.
14 The electronic containers used to transport
15 the cash contain individualized, again, botanically
16 derived DNA.
17 So, we take the DNA from a plant, the whole
18 genome, and make a mark, and they're in those
19 containers that are used to carry cash. And,
20 they're discharged, our DNA mark, in the event of
21 theft, and they decorate the cash, 100 percent of
22 the cash, in the box.
23 As you know, in the U.K., they don't believe
24 in guards carrying weapons, so these crimes take
25 place at a very high rate. About 20 fold the rate
69
1 in the United States.
2 The DNA decorates the cash with a unique
3 marker. It's a unique DNA marker to every ATM and
4 to every cash box that we mark, so that the police
5 can rapidly screen the mark, and then identify any
6 cash to a specific crime.
7 So, it allows you to trace the cash to the
8 crime.
9 To date, we have 85 cases with Scotland Yard,
10 28 of which have gone to trial. And we've achieved,
11 for the first time in the industry, a remarkable,
12 100 percent conviction rate in every single case,
13 and it's yielded some of the longest sentences ever
14 handed down.
15 Just last week, we announced the successful
16 conviction of a drug gang operating throughout
17 Europe, convicted, using our DNA evidence.
18 In the United States, we've been contracted
19 by the Department of Defense to pilot a program that
20 will eliminate the entry of counterfeit microchips
21 and electronics into the military supply chain, a
22 problem that puts our war fighters at serious risk.
23 This is our second contract from DOD, from
24 DLA specifically, which is the largest purchasing
25 consortium in the world, and it's about to go full
70
1 scale in an off-shore facility with one of America's
2 best known microchip manufacturers.
3 Our DNA-marking system allows the
4 authentication of general -- genuine parts at any
5 point in the supply chain.
6 On Long Island, our smart DNA crime
7 prevention units, in our first banks, were just
8 installed.
9 And, we're preparing to protect our first
10 pharmacies against the scourge of pain-killer
11 robberies.
12 We've won multiple awards from
13 law enforcement, including the highest award from
14 the Houses of Parliament only last December, and
15 been told by some police officers that the initials
16 "DNA" are now interpreted by criminals as
17 "Do Not Attempt."
18 We utilize botanical DNA as a safe,
19 high-resolution, high-content identifier. Over
20 forty of our patents ensure our DNA marks cannot be
21 copied.
22 That's a critical aspect.
23 Our marks cannot be copied, and that's been
24 proven by multiple government agencies.
25 They're highly table, they resist removal,
71
1 and fulfill the requirements for forensic certainty.
2 Our experience, is that the popular awareness
3 of the robustness and reliability of DNA serve as a
4 powerful deterrent.
5 In fact, crime rates have diminished
6 within 12 months in each of our deployments.
7 In London, for example, after one year of
8 use, cash crimes were down 55 percent; and cash
9 losses, 77 percent. That's over a 40 million
10 loss -- $40 million loss, originally, by our same
11 customers.
12 Our customers enjoyed over a 100-fold return
13 within only 12 months.
14 [New slide being shown.]
15 So, when it comes to improving exam security,
16 we've targeted the credentials, and the challenge
17 is, that the actual eligible registered participants
18 complete the registration.
19 Our goal is to maintain a level playing field
20 for all participants using our botanical DNA as a
21 solution, and the solution is simple: it's enhanced
22 pre-registration, identity verification before and
23 after exams, and the ease of mobile computing
24 through our product, digital DNA.
25 [New slide being shown.]
72
1 Our digital marks represent the interface
2 between biotechnology, mobile communications, and
3 the security of a private "cloud."
4 This technology is designed to provide
5 identity authentication and location throughout any
6 supply chain, including the supply chain of the
7 SATs.
8 Our marks have already been deployed by the
9 federal government -- the three-letter agencies --
10 to provide the highest security identity systems
11 available.
12 We are fully prepared to help the
13 Higher Education Committee in New York State
14 eliminate any uncertainty or impersonation in
15 current SAT testing practices.
16 [New slide being shown.]
17 So, this begins with an enhanced SAT
18 pre-registration.
19 Each student must register at their home
20 school, and there is no reason why that can't be
21 done, and present legally binding identity-proving
22 documents.
23 No student ID, no letters from guidance
24 counselors or parents; only, birth certificates,
25 driver license, passports, or military documents.
73
1 A student's photograph is taken, as shown in
2 this slide, and it's uploaded to a private secure
3 "cloud," and associated with a unique digital DNA
4 code, which is eventually printed on the student
5 documents.
6 That code can be read by a mobile phone; by
7 any mobile phone.
8 [New slide being shown.]
9 An SAT digital ID card is produced in a
10 secured central location, and then mailed to the
11 student's school.
12 A unique DNA sequence -- again, not a human
13 sequence, but a botanical sequence -- is included in
14 the ink used to print a student-unique digital DNA
15 code.
16 So, the code that's shown on each of the ID
17 cards is unique to that particular student, and
18 cannot be copied even with the photo copier, because
19 that code is impregnated with the DNA marker which
20 itself cannot be copied.
21 So, that mark is elevated to a forensic
22 level.
23 The digital DNA code, the sequence of the
24 DNA, the student photo, the student address, the
25 school, and serialized Health in America are all
74
1 associated with each card.
2 Additional rapid reading, covert, which I'd
3 rather not describe, field identification marks are
4 associated with the card.
5 So, for example: A proctor roaming the hall
6 would have the ability to authenticate the card in
7 the way that the student won't know about.
8 [New slide being shown.]
9 On test day, the student presents the digital
10 SAT entry ID card, as shown above.
11 The digital code is scanned by any
12 smartphone. And, we also have smartphones that are
13 capable of scanning hundreds of cards in a few
14 seconds. They scan at the rate of one per
15 millisecond using an infrared reader.
16 Each time a card is scanned, the digital code
17 is brought down from the "cloud," the identity is
18 retrieved and portrayed on the iPhone, or,
19 smartphone.
20 So, identity is achieved in front of the
21 proctor three ways: It's on the student's card,
22 whose photo matches the student; and it's on the
23 proctor's smartphone, whose photo matches, both, the
24 student and the ID card.
25 [New slide being shown.]
75
1 Some of the additional protection on the card
2 consists of covert markers. We have covert markers
3 that are optical, ultraviolet, infrared, physical,
4 and chemical. And all of those can also be read by
5 hand-held devices in the corridor, or, anywhere.
6 Now, when it's read, analytics are reported
7 in real time through Google Maps, and the agency
8 controlling the web portal -- whether it's the
9 school, where it's the Higher Education Committee,
10 whether it's the College Board -- would have access
11 to real-time data as to where that student is at the
12 moment that their card were read; or, whether or not
13 that student is roaming, and could possibly be an
14 impersonator. But, as they roam, each of their
15 locations would be noted forensically.
16 [New slide being shown.]
17 And then, finally, as perhaps the highest
18 level of authentication available, is the forensic
19 DNA element.
20 While the roaming proctors can amplify any
21 student's ID with the UV light, the identity can be
22 authenticated anytime with a smartphone.
23 In the event of a suspected impersonation or
24 a falsified card, this slide shows the forensic
25 sampling, as a CSI would do, with a simple swab,
76
1 that removes using a special approach, the DNA
2 that's been embedded in various locations in that
3 card.
4 That would ascertain the identity of that
5 card, without doubt, in court. An expert witness
6 report would be produced by the forensic scientist
7 that applied DNA, and provided to a prosecutor.
8 [New slide being shown.]
9 Secure checkout: The student's identity is
10 once again verified at the conclusion of the test.
11 And I should say, that you could also print
12 the digital DNA code on the test itself, to match it
13 to the card.
14 But, under the circumstances, we think the
15 system is tight enough that you may not have to do
16 that.
17 And, both, time and location are recorded on
18 the SAT portal in real-time.
19 Now, these very brief videos portray, in
20 sequence, so that you can see exactly how it would
21 work.
22 Pre-registration: It's a very smooth
23 process, done simply.
24 The data are uploaded to the "cloud." The
25 data from the cloud is used to print, in a
77
1 centralized location, the information for the card,
2 and the card is shipped back to the school; picked
3 up by the student.
4 [Videos being shown.]
5 SENATOR LAVALLE: I think we, uhm -- I think
6 we get the, uhm --
7 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: Sure, you get the point.
8 SENATOR LAVALLE: How much does this cost?
9 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: Well, the DNA required to
10 embed the card is infinitesimally small.
11 Our analytical methods allow us to detect,
12 literally, as little as a single card.
13 So, the DNA required, per card, is really
14 pennies, or less.
15 SENATOR LAVALLE: But there's a -- so, if
16 someone came to you and said, "We have a million
17 students in a year, in New York, and we want to put
18 this methodology into use," what would be the cost
19 to College Board?
20 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: I'll tell you the
21 variables, and then tell you what I think it would
22 actually cost.
23 The variables would be:
24 How many locations we would have to originate
25 the students, upload the data from.
78
1 You have to have a server at each location.
2 Chances are, the schools already have those;
3 You'd have to have a camera capable of taking
4 their photograph. Chances are, the schools already
5 have those.
6 When it comes to authentication, we have two
7 tools:
8 We have the hand-held rapid-reading tool.
9 And it's a little hard for us, given the data that
10 we have heard, to estimate the numbers of those
11 tools. They cost a couple of hundred dollars each.
12 The DNA-based authentication, which produces
13 court-valid data, runs on the order of four to
14 five hundred dollars.
15 But, the number of those authentications
16 required would be limited by only those cases in
17 which there is now, because you have selection
18 processes, based on rapid screenings, when you
19 arrive at serious doubt that there is a crime that's
20 been produced, the number of those events, as we'd
21 even heard from ETS and the College Board, relative
22 to the total number of students taking the test, is
23 quite small.
24 So, the cost of authentication could actually
25 be dialed in to whatever budget the College Board
79
1 wants to work with.
2 And, you know, could easily be under a dollar
3 a card.
4 SENATOR LAVALLE: $100 a card.
5 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: Under a dollar a card.
6 SENATOR STAVISKY: A dollar -- one dollar.
7 SENATOR LAVALLE: Under a dollar.
8 Okay.
9 Okay.
10 SENATOR STAVISKY: I have two really quick --
11 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: Sure.
12 SENATOR STAVISKY: -- two really quick
13 questions.
14 Number one: Have you approached
15 College Board with this technology?
16 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: We have not.
17 Our platform has been used by the federal
18 government, by the highest secure facilities, that
19 we can't talk about.
20 And, as we became aware -- we were unaware of
21 the SAT issue -- we rapidly developed the system
22 that we think would work quite well, would be quite
23 readily managed, and could be rapidly deployed.
24 SENATOR STAVISKY: And my last question was
25 presented by my Senate fellow, Vincent Stark, and he
80
1 has a very interesting question: What do you do in
2 the case of twins?
3 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: I use -- since --
4 remember, there is no human DNA involved --
5 SENATOR STAVISKY: So there's no human DNA --
6 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: -- at all.
7 SENATOR STAVISKY: -- in the photographs,
8 presumably, might be a question?
9 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: Yes, but they would also
10 be given different codes.
11 SENATOR STAVISKY: DNA. Yeah, okay.
12 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: Their codes would be
13 distinct --
14 SENATOR STAVISKY: You've answered my
15 question.
16 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: -- and their markers
17 would be distinct.
18 We'd have no trouble.
19 SENATOR STAVISKY: No trouble.
20 SENATOR LAVALLE: Yeah.
21 SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
22 SENATOR LAVALLE: I'm just going to give you,
23 for your own, if you could jot these numbers down,
24 and we could talk about it at some other time.
25 And, this is for the other two groups that
81
1 are going to testify.
2 There are 170,000 students who took the SAT
3 in New York in 2011. It's given 8 times a year, at
4 138 locations.
5 SENATOR STAVISKY: That's just New York.
6 They would do --
7 SENATOR LAVALLE: That's just New York.
8 SENATOR STAVISKY: -- and they would do
9 this -- presumably, they would do this nationally.
10 I think Mr. Elmsdorf, from the College Board,
11 testified, there were 2 million people, nationally,
12 last year, who took the College Board.
13 MALE UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is that,
14 170,000 each time, or is that total?
15 [Inaudible] eight times a year.
16 SENATOR LAVALLE: Is that total?
17 FEMALE UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [Inaudible].
18 SENATOR LAVALLE: That was total.
19 MALE UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Total,
20 eight times a year?
21 SENATOR LAVALLE: Total.
22 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: Yes, I should point out
23 the scalability of our process.
24 That, we have marked over a billion items to
25 date.
82
1 That, in our defense relationship, we are
2 working a microchip annual turnover of some
3 300 billion chips, with another 100 billion
4 counterfeit chips.
5 The system is extremely scalable.
6 What we would like to propose to the
7 Committee, as well as, perhaps to the College Board,
8 is a pilot program, which could be placed underway
9 quite rapidly, perhaps at one or two schools, in the
10 very near term, under very affordable circumstances,
11 and demonstrate the complete utility of the method,
12 with little delay.
13 SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay, just in closing, and,
14 this is not only for you, Dr. Hayward, but for the
15 other members, as I had said, my opening remarks,
16 you and the other two individuals came forward as
17 citizens, to say: Hey, we have something that might
18 work.
19 From this point forward, the Committee has no
20 jurisdiction. It is, either, College Board that
21 would entertain calling any one of the three of you,
22 or whoever else is out there.
23 We're just, kind of, a facilitator.
24 And as I said, we didn't need to hire anyone
25 to have people come forward and give us good solid
83
1 ideas.
2 Thank you for your testimony.
3 DR. JAMES HAYWARD: You're very welcome.
4 SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
5 SENATOR LAVALLE: David Wicker,
6 vice president of research and development,
7 DSS - Security Wise.
8 David, you will introduce your associate --
9 DAVID WICKER: Yes.
10 SENATOR LAVALLE: -- who I have met, but...
11 DAVID WICKER: Good afternoon, ladies and
12 gentlemen of the Committee.
13 I have, uhm -- I'm David Wicker.
14 And this gentleman is Jody Sherman. He's the
15 Document Security Systems' senior business
16 development specialist.
17 SENATOR LAVALLE: Nice and loud so people can
18 hear you in the back.
19 DAVID WICKER: Thank you for inviting me to
20 speak on the policies and procedures of standardized
21 tests.
22 My name is David Wicker, and I'm the
23 vice president of research and development for
24 Document Security Systems, a Rochester,
25 New York-based technology company with over
84
1 100 employees.
2 Representing DSS, I also serve as a member
3 and committee chairperson for the Document Security
4 Alliance, an organization comprised of industry
5 experts and government officials that make and guide
6 recommendations on U.S. security documents.
7 I'm also an advisory board member of the
8 Utica State College's Center for ID Management and
9 Identity Protection Organization.
10 And, I teach periodic seminars on substrate
11 security features at the Rochester Institute of
12 Technology, and several federal agencies.
13 Now, as to why I'm here addressing
14 standardized testing procedures, and possible
15 cheating preventions that could be put into place,
16 there are multiple points in the process where
17 security can be added.
18 First: One first protection, in the
19 standardized test booklets and the accompanying
20 answer sheets, without compromising legibility to
21 the test applicants or the answer-sheet scanning
22 equipment, would be the addition of a technology
23 that appears as a light-gray tint.
24 This tint has been certified by the
25 Rochester Institute of Technology, to be used in
85
1 digital printing or office printing, as a test
2 material that would create robust warning messages
3 if the document was copied or stamped.
4 So, in other words: If someone was trying to
5 bring a counterfeit or a duplicated document into
6 the test site, just switch.
7 I've an example here.
8 SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay.
9 [Document handed to the Chairman.]
10 SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you.
11 DAVID WICKER: So, that is a test for
12 citizenship. And the inside sheet is a copy off a
13 standard color copier.
14 [Document being reviewed by Committee
15 members.]
16 DAVID WICKER: So, those warning messages
17 would appear on the criminal's computer screen, or
18 on the output of the copier scan, and stop them from
19 duplicating the test or inserting other information.
20 SENATOR LAVALLE: The alleged criminal.
21 DAVID WICKER: Yes.
22 Okay.
23 We have many types of technology.
24 The technology that you see there, is used on
25 documents that are in your back pocket today, and in
86
1 your vehicle. So, the information is quite robust,
2 as far as imaging technology.
3 So, we talked about these tests being
4 administered in world.
5 We operate in the world, in over 90 countries
6 now, to protect government documents.
7 So, you're giving basic printing technology
8 to the documents themselves.
9 Now, this would lead to the document that we
10 talked about, that would be -- that would gather the
11 student's signature at the home school.
12 So, we can put technology in that document,
13 that can be verified at the test site.
14 I'm going to -- I'll give Jody another
15 document, here.
16 So, this is an idea, example, of an image
17 that was put in by a normal desktop printer, that
18 can't be copied or scanned. It's an identifier that
19 could be visualized at the test site by a simple
20 hand-held lens.
21 [Document handed to the Chairman, and
22 reviewed by Committee members.]
23 SENATOR STAVISKY: Well, I'll be darned.
24 [Discussion being held off the record
25 between Committee members and Jody Sherman at the
87
1 Committee's table.]
2 DAVID WICKER: So, specific information about
3 the student could be put in at the home school. It
4 would not be known to the student. They couldn't
5 decipher that image, until it was recognized or
6 authenticated at the test by the proctor.
7 JODY SHERMAN: And all those lenses are
8 different. So, you can't have one application, then
9 pick this lens over, and use it.
10 SENATOR STAVISKY: And they can't replicate
11 the lens?
12 JODY SHERMAN: Correct.
13 DAVID WICKER: What I described, there would
14 be -- during the registration process, you'd be able
15 to -- they'd be able to vet the information the
16 student gave them, and put some of that information
17 in the hidden image, to be verified by the proctor
18 at the test site.
19 A step further could include a portable
20 digital system that would integrate the identity of
21 the student to the answer sheet.
22 Upon arriving at the test location, the
23 student's registration form would have a bar code
24 that would be scanned into the computer, to bring up
25 the personal information.
88
1 The student would then be photographed on the
2 site, and the student's photo would be printed
3 alongside the bar code on their answer sheet.
4 The digital photo would be stored in the
5 database with the student-identity information.
6 When the test has been scored, the results
7 can be printed onto the secure paper, along with the
8 student photo ID taken at the time of the exam.
9 The test results, sent to the school and
10 parents, would show immediate evidence that someone
11 else other than their child took the test.
12 The photo on the actual answer sheet would
13 back up if there were databased error claims.
14 While I could go on further, my time is about
15 up.
16 Exam security procedures could be explored
17 much more thoroughly, to create custom, effective
18 solutions.
19 SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
20 Interesting.
21 And what would this cost?
22 DAVID WICKER: This is --
23 SENATOR LAVALLE: That's the bottom-line
24 question.
25 SENATOR STAVISKY: Yeah.
89
1 DAVID WICKER: -- there's two ways to deliver
2 it --
3 SENATOR STAVISKY: The State is not paying
4 for it.
5 DAVID WICKER: Right. Right.
6 There's two ways to deliver it: Normal
7 offset printing, or digitally.
8 It -- right now, the tests are printed with
9 black ink on white paper.
10 We're utilizing that same process, so, we're
11 talking pennies, to give currency-level technology.
12 SENATOR LAVALLE: Uh-huh.
13 DAVID WICKER: Currency level of counterfeit
14 protection to the actual test documents.
15 SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay.
16 Citizens stepping forward, giving us ideas;
17 and, hopefully, College Board ideas.
18 Thank you.
19 DAVID WICKER: Thank you.
20 SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
21 SENATOR LAVALLE: Ray Philo is the director
22 of research operations, Department of Economic Crime
23 and Justice Studies at Utica College.
24 RAYMOND PHILO: Good afternoon.
25 I would like to read a short statement into
90
1 the record.
2 Chairman LaValle, and members of the
3 Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify
4 on the important issue of cheating on
5 college-entrance exams.
6 We live in a very credentialed society, and
7 these credentials indicate that a particular person
8 is educated, trained, and competent within a certain
9 discipline.
10 The consequences of cheating on competency
11 exams, whether they be SAT exams,
12 professional-licensing exams, or civil-service
13 exams, has a detrimental effect on our society, our
14 safety, and, ultimately, on this nation's ability to
15 compete effectively in an ever-contentious and
16 competitive global economy.
17 Cheating also violates those core values
18 imparted to us by our parents, schools, and
19 professional training, and provides an unfair
20 advantage to the cheater, at the expense and
21 detriment to the honest student test taker.
22 This Committee has heard, in previous
23 testimony, on the very consequences of cheating;
24 therefore, I will not take up your valuable time
25 discussing these consequences further.
91
1 My time can best be used to address the issue
2 of test-event security, and some mitigating
3 strategies that should be considered to prevent
4 further instances of cheating.
5 At Utica College, located in
6 Upstate New York, we maintain a research center,
7 referred to as "CIMIP"; the Center for Identity
8 Management and Information Protection.
9 CIMIP performs cutting-edge research on a
10 variety of identity management issues, ranging from,
11 medical identity fraud, to sex-offender identity
12 manipulation.
13 Our research indicates, for the most part,
14 that in our very technologically advanced society,
15 the bad guys are employing identity-manipulation
16 techniques much faster than authorities are engaging
17 in counterstrategies.
18 Identity manipulation can also employ
19 low-technology techniques with surprising results.
20 A cursory review of the facts surrounding the
21 cheating incidents that allegedly occurred in the
22 Great Neck area indicates a system begging for
23 security enhancements.
24 These security enhancements need not involve
25 overly expensive technology or the creation of an
92
1 additional bureaucracy to enhance test-event
2 security.
3 The critical issue in test-event security, is
4 verifying that the test taker is actually the
5 biological person who is authorized to take the
6 exam.
7 As we have experienced, presenting
8 identification is not enough to present [sic]
9 unauthorized individuals from taking an exam.
10 We must adopt, what we refer to as, "a
11 two-factor security protocol," that authenticates
12 that the identity document presented actually is the
13 person authorized to take the exam.
14 To put it simply: Identity without
15 authentication lacks proof.
16 Identity authentication could be a relatively
17 simple and inexpensive process, or it could be
18 complex and very expensive, depending on the
19 measures desired and employed.
20 For example: A relatively simple
21 authentication of a person's identity could be a
22 "challenge" question, where the -- where only the
23 actual authorized person would know the answer
24 without knowing the "challenge" question beforehand.
25 Biometrics could be utilized as a method of
93
1 authentication.
2 "Biometric" refers to the biological
3 identifiers unique to only one person. These could
4 include, a fingerprint, a retinal scan,
5 facial-recognition technology, et cetera.
6 While this authentication procedure can be
7 complex, it may be expensive.
8 They are currently used -- being used in both
9 public and private sector, and, surely, will be
10 playing a larger role in our lives in the future.
11 As a matter of fact, biometrics, in the form
12 of a fingerprint, has been used in certain
13 professional-licensing and civil-service exams for
14 years.
15 One other area of test-event security that
16 should be enhanced is staff security training.
17 We need to ensure that those who proctor
18 exams have the proper training in recognizing and
19 evaluating identification documents; and,
20 subsequently, administering the authentication
21 process.
22 Once again, this training not be -- need be
23 overly expensive or time-consuming.
24 For example: The New York State Department
25 of Motor Vehicle provides excellent training to law
94
1 enforcement, in the evaluation of identity documents
2 to include drivers licenses.
3 DMV offers this training through their office
4 of field investigations, and can be easily adapted
5 to examination proctors.
6 I would be remiss if I did not address the
7 issue of deterrents as a mitigating factor against
8 cheating on certain exams.
9 By "deterrents," I refer to the evaluation of
10 existing statutes and the criminality of cheating on
11 these exams.
12 As an individual who had a 30-year
13 law-enforcement career prior to moving full-time
14 into academics and research, I can testify as to the
15 power of deterrents, not with everybody, but with
16 most people.
17 It is time that we review our criminal
18 statutes, as they apply to cheating and identity
19 crimes, to evaluate if they are robust enough to
20 deter this activity in the future.
21 And I do note, the proposed draft
22 legislation.
23 In particular, we should consider whether the
24 statutes of limitations on these types of crimes,
25 which are generally misdemeanors, depending on the
95
1 fact pattern, are long enough to provide for an
2 adequate prosecution once cheating is suspected and
3 determined.
4 In conclusion: We, as a society, are
5 obligated to adequately address the issue of
6 cheating on certain competency exams before it
7 becomes prolific, and undermines our economic and
8 professional credibility worldwide.
9 As we continue to move at an even faster pace
10 to an on-line testing world, we must be thought
11 leaders and innovators in the area of test-event
12 security.
13 Once again, I would like to thank this
14 Committee for the -- their important work they're
15 doing in this area, and for the opportunity to speak
16 on this important issue.
17 I am not here to recommend any particular
18 type of technology or protocol; just to let the
19 Committee know, based on my work, that those
20 protocols and that -- those technologies, either
21 low-tech or high-tech, do exist. And I believe,
22 even considering the numbers of test takers, that
23 they're adequate for the volume.
24
25
96
1 SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator Griffo had asked
2 before -- in you -- first page, you talk about,
3 cheating violates core values.
4 His question was: Are things worse today in
5 cheating?
6 Are those core values just disintegrated, or,
7 is always been about the same level?
8 RAYMOND PHILO: Well, I think it always
9 existed, Senator.
10 However, technology, as indicated by previous
11 testimony, really has leveraged core values, and
12 challenged the core values, because we've made it --
13 the technology has made it a lot easier to cheat and
14 engage in criminality, generally.
15 So opportunity -- I guess the answer to the
16 question: The opportunity is there, much more than
17 I believe.
18 SENATOR LAVALLE: You talked about proctor
19 training.
20 College Board said they're enhancing that, so
21 that fits in.
22 Let me ask you: You spent some time, a full
23 paragraph, on deterrence.
24 RAYMOND PHILO: Yes.
25 SENATOR LAVALLE: Is our legislation strong
97
1 enough?
2 The Committee went through a very lengthy
3 discussion/debate on -- on what they thought was
4 appropriate, for those under 21, those over 21.
5 And I think the legislation is reflective of
6 that.
7 In your own professional judgment, do you
8 think that what we have in our draft bill is strong
9 enough -- a strong enough deterrent?
10 RAYMOND PHILO: I do, and I'll tell you why.
11 First of all, I base my opinion, not only as
12 an academic, a person who -- we're dealing with
13 identity issues all the time, especially in on-line
14 learning, but also as a career law-enforcement
15 officer.
16 I was very pleased to have the opportunity
17 this morning to review the draft legislation.
18 It was -- it's, uhm, I think robust enough,
19 that it addresses the issues; especially the issues
20 of the statute of limitations.
21 Statute of limitations, generally, on
22 misdemeanors are two year. That may not be enough.
23 That's indicated by district attorney, also,
24 of Nassau County.
25 Some of these crimes, these proposed
98
1 statutes, are felonies -- low-grade felonies, but,
2 nonetheless, which increases the statute of
3 limitations; allows for the law-enforcement
4 authorities -- if there is an allegation, the
5 law-enforcement prosecutorial authorities to deal
6 with the alleged crime.
7 SENATOR LAVALLE: Yeah. Great.
8 I have no more questions.
9 Senator Stavisky?
10 Senator Griffo?
11 SENATOR GRIFFO: Yes, I just want to take the
12 opportunity, uhm -- just want to take the
13 opportunity, Ray, to thank you for being here.
14 RAYMOND PHILO: Thank you, Senator.
15 SENATOR GRIFFO: And, I call him
16 "Chief Philo," because he was also the head of a
17 law-enforcement department in New Hartford for a
18 long time.
19 And, I think what you said today, though, the
20 importance is, that we do have the means, we do have
21 the technology. We just need to apply that, and
22 that we can prevent what we're seeing.
23 Correct?
24 I mean, the incidents that we're seeing now,
25 are preventable?
99
1 RAYMOND PHILO: Absolutely.
2 And I think what the previous two individuals
3 that testified also, indicated that also.
4 The technology is here. It doesn't need to
5 be overly expensive. It doesn't need to create an
6 additional, large bureaucratic appendage to
7 administer these technological methods.
8 I think we can get the job done very
9 effectively, even considering the number of
10 individuals that take the tests.
11 SENATOR GRIFFO: Utica College has a unique
12 situation, because you do have the Department of
13 Economic Crime and Justice Studies, which deals with
14 a lot of issues, not only here in the state, but
15 across the nation.
16 Do you believe, even though the College Board
17 has primary responsibility, obviously, for the
18 testing, do the universities all have a role to play
19 in this too?
20 Because, obviously, they're impacted as a
21 result of what takes place, and who may be admitted
22 to schools.
23 So, what role does -- I mean, you're unique
24 in what you can offer from this specific department.
25 Do you see a role for the universities, in
100
1 general, also to engage in this?
2 RAYMOND PHILO: Oh, I do.
3 And to a certain extent, the universities --
4 colleges and universities are going to be the
5 victims of a cheating scandal, if you kind of look
6 at it that way.
7 We're going be the ones, that we're going to
8 have to deal with the -- well, quite frankly, the
9 inferior student that comes on board, with false
10 credentials.
11 So, yeah, we have a large role to play in the
12 mitigation process.
13 Plus, the whole spectra of
14 identity-management manipulation we're dealing with
15 all the time. It's going to -- and it is a big
16 issue now, because, as on-line teaching takes off,
17 and very much has at most colleges and universities,
18 we've got to, not only identify, but authenticate,
19 the person on that computer a thousand miles away is
20 the actual person taking the exam.
21 And, that's part of the accreditation
22 process.
23 So, we're dealing with the same issues, at a
24 different level, or a different scale, and maybe a
25 different level of technology also.
101
1 But, basically we're all dealing with this
2 issue of, identity, and authenticating, that the
3 person who's taking a competency exam is the actual
4 person authorized to do it.
5 SENATOR GRIFFO: I want to give a compliment
6 to work that do you, and the college, and, I want to
7 thank you for being here.
8 RAYMOND PHILO: Thank you, sir.
9 SENATOR GRIFFO: Mr. Chairman?
10 SENATOR STAVISKY: May I just ask -- may I
11 add -- I'm sorry.
12 And may I add, I am sorry that the
13 College Board and SAT folks left --
14 SENATOR LAVALLE: No, they're --
15 SENATOR STAVISKY: They're here?
16 Great.
17 Great, I am happy you're here.
18 That, here is an example of people coming
19 forward to volunteer information.
20 And I hope that you take that to -- back with
21 you. And I -- because I'm sure everybody wants to
22 work together to resolve this issue.
23 MALE UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Absolutely.
24 SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
25 SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay, I think we had some
102
1 great testimony.
2 Being a former teacher, I am going to give a
3 homework assignment for College Board: By the end
4 of the week, we would like your reactions to the
5 draft bill.
6 We are going to have a Committee meeting on
7 February the 13th. And at that meeting, I would
8 like the principals of both ETS and College Board to
9 be at that Committee meeting -- it will be a full
10 Committee meeting -- with the possibility of moving
11 the bill out of Committee on the 13th of February.
12 I will be having conversations with my
13 counterpart, Assemblymember Glick, who is the Chair
14 in the Assembly Committee, to get her reactions,
15 where they might be over in the Assembly.
16 And, so, we're not on a slow track; and we
17 would like compliance, with the principals to be at
18 that Committee meeting.
19 Thank you for all being here.
20
21 (Whereupon, at approximately 2:05 p.m.,
22 the public hearing, held before the New York State
23 Senate Standing Committee on Higher Education,
24 concluded.)
25 ---oOo---