Public Hearing Policy and Procedures Pertaining to the Security of the Sat and Standardized Tests

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 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 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 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." 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." 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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, 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 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 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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?" 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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." 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, 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. 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. 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 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 -- 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 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." 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 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 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? 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 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. 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." 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 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 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 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. 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 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? 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 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 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? 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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, 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.] 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. 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 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.] 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, 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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? 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 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. 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 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---