stuyvesant report 08 30 13 - final

7/30/2019 Stuyvesant Report 08 30 13 - Final

1/56

OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONSOFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONSOFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONSOFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

INVESTIGATIVE REPORTINVESTIGATIVE REPORTINVESTIGATIVE REPORTINVESTIGATIVE REPORT

Courtenaye Jackson-Chase DATE: November 5, 2012General Counsel

Candace R. McLaren TO: Candace R. McLaren

Director Director

Christopher J. Dalton FROM : Dennis Boyles

Deputy Director Kara Hughes

Robert SmallNorris W. Knowles Confidential InvestigatorsAssociate Director

SUBJECT: An Investigation into Cheating and Testing Improprieties at Stuyvesant

High School during June 2012

OSI Case #12-5848

________________________________________________________________________

ORIGIN OF COMPLAINT

On June 29, 2012, the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) received a referralfrom the Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI) concerning the conduct of

Stanley Teitel, Principal, Stuyvesant High School (Stuyvesant). On June 25, 2012,

Despina Zaharakis, Senior Executive Director, Office of School Support, called SCI toreport Mr. Teitel for testing improprieties. Specifically, Ms. Zaharakis relayed concern

that Mr. Teitel had failed to report an incident of student cheating on the June 2012

Regents exams to both State and City officials.1

1It should be noted that the first media coverage of the Stuyvesant cheating scandal was printed in theNew York Daily

News on Monday, June 25, 2012.


2/56

OSI Case #12-5848

Chancellors Office of Special Investigations

65 Court Street - Room 922 Brooklyn, NY 11201

Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-2-

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

Stuyvesant students/parents:

Student A, 16-year-old, male, 11th

grade:

Student As OSI interview:

Student A was interviewed on July 30, 2012 by Investigators Boyles and Hughes,

in the presence of Father A.2

To begin, Student A confirmed that he had used his iPhone

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

understanding of Stuyvesants cell phone policy, Student A stated that Mr. Teitel advises

students that he doesnt check bags; however, if a teacher sees a phone, theyllconfiscate it. He further acknowledged that Mr. Teitel has outlined this policy

multiple times.

When asked why he decided to cheat on the exams, Student A expressed that he

wanted to garner good will amongst his classmates. He explained that he is good inPhysics, okay in U.S. History, and not good at all in Spanish; as such, he was

hoping that one of the classmates whom he helped on the Physics or U.S. History examwould be motivated to assist him during the LOTE exam.

When questioned, Student A explained that the first conversation he had with anyclassmates about potentially cheating was held face-to-face on Tuesday, June 12, 2012.

Following this, Student A and Students E and F communicated about the plan via text

messaging.4

When asked about the eventual number of students involved, Student Aasserted that the number of students who received his texts grew and grew. Student A

claimed that, although the plan to cheat was maybe mentioned on Facebook, no details

about the plan were disclosed online.

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

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

individuals, the second of whom takes the place of the first mid-way through the three-hour exam. According to Student A, the first Regents exam he took was the Physics

exam: his proctors were Mr. Francis, followed by an unidentified female.5

Initially, Student A asserted that, because he was familiar with Mr. Francis and

knew he was hard [an observant proctor], he didnt utilize [his] cell phone until Ms.

George came to relieve Mr. Francis of his proctoring post. When Investigators Boyles

2A summary of Father As brief interview statements follows the summary of Student As statements.

3For reference, the LOTE is the Language Other Than English exam; it was administered on June 18, 2012.

Although it is a city-wide (and not a state-wide) test, a students performance on the LOTE affects whether he or she

receives an Advanced Regents diploma.4

All attempts to contact and interview Students E and F were unsuccessful.5

Mr. Francis has been identified as Hugh Francis, ELA teacher; based on the proctoring schedule provided to OSI by

Assistant Principal and testing coordinator Randi Damesek, it is believed that the female proctor is Biology teacher

Shangaza George.


3/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-3-

and Hughes apprised Student A that his phone records indicate that he did use his phoneon June 13 during the first half of the Physics exam, Student A clarified, I didnt use it

for answers. When questioned, Student A clarified that the text messages were all

related to the test, but not answers. According to Student A, soon after Ms. George tookover as proctor, he took a picture of [his] scrap paper [that had] all of [his] short

answer answers on it. At first, Student A stated that he sent the photo to approximately

five or six students, but then he later clarified that he sent the photo to upwards of 71 to

80 students, but that only five or six students had cell phones capable of receiving thephoto message. He clarified that this was the only photograph of the Physics exam that

he had sent to his classmates.

Student A asserted that Ms. George was not an astute proctor, and that she did not

walk around the room to monitor test-takers. According to Student A, there was an

undetermined point in time when Ms. George fell asleep while sitting at a desk locatedat the front of the classroom.6 Student A stated that he capitalized on this, explaining, I

left my cell phone on my desk. The female just sat at her desk and fell asleep.

Student A explained that, aside from the photograph of his scrap paper, the

remainder of the messages that he sent out were text-only. Upon request, Student Aindicated that, during the Physics exam, he sent approximately 10 separate text messages

to roughly 80 classmates. It was Student As rough estimation that 15-20% of hisclassmates wrote him back; he acknowledged that some students wrote him back that he

had the wrong number. When questioned, Student A stated that he had created the pre-

determined group distribution list completely [at] random. He explained, Peopleasked, Could you put me on the mass text? which then expanded the initial group that

had been comprised of him, Students E and F.

It was at this point during his OSI interview that Student A contended that he did

not send any text messages to students outside of Stuyvesant; he further asserted that he

did not make any money as a result of sending out exam answers. When asked what hewould have done if he had been unable to access his cell phone during the administrationof any of the exams, Student A offered, I would have prepared a crib sheet and

communicated [with my classmates] after I finished a three hour test in two hours.

When asked about the U.S. History Regents exam, Student A detailed that his first

proctor was Mr. Jaye, a math teacher, and that Mr. Waxman was the second proctor.7

Student A admitted that he used his cell phone to text answers to classmates during theadministration of the U.S. History exam. He clarified that he sent messages that were

text only and no photos, and explained that he was able to access his phone by placing

it on his lap.8

Student A stated that he sent roughly 33 texts about the essays that

6For reference, Student A explained that he was sitting in the second row, on the complete opposite side of the room

from the desk at which Ms. George fell asleep.7

According to the proctoring paperwork provided by Ms. Damesek, Gary Rubenstein, and Bernard Feigenbaum were

assigned to proctor Student As U.S. History exam; Gary Jaye teaches Math, and Michael Waxman is a Social Studies

teacher. As is detailed in the summary of Ms. Dameseks interview, the proctoring paperwork obtained by OSI reflects

the preliminary proctoring schedule Ms. Damesek acknowledged that adjustments were made to this schedule, often as

late as the day-of the exam.8

Student A, who has a slight frame, demonstrated that held his legs together and placed his knees on the edge of his desk,

so as to access his phone without much difficulty.


4/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-4-

appeared on the U.S. History exam, and that he had to send one text per essay. He toldInvestigators Boyles and Hughes that he messaged fewer people during the U.S. History

exam than he had during the Physics, estimating that he texted somewhere between 40

and 50 classmates. Student A could not recall how many of his classmates responded tohis texts during the History exam he estimated that maybe between three and five

kids wrote back. According to Student A, because he was nearly done by the time

Mr. Waxman relieved Mr. Jaye of his proctoring duties, he was almost done with both

his exam and his efforts to disseminate exam answers to his classmates when Mr.Waxman became the classroom proctor.

Student A reported that Ms. Arora and an unidentified female were his proctorsfor the ELA exam.9 Student A stated that there was no cheating during the

administration of the ELA Regents exam. He clarified that he received texts from five

to ten people asking for help, to which he replied, English is easy.

When asked about the LOTE exam, the only proctor Student A named was Mr.

Tillman.10

Student A told Investigators Boyles and Hughes that he later found that hehad been set up, and that Mr. Tillman had been placed in his testing room for the

express purpose of watching Student A.11 According to Student A, Mr. Tillman wasresponsible for giving the opening talk, regarding testing procedures. When questioned

about the content of Mr. Tillmans announcements, Student A replied, I think he saidsomething about phones. I recall him saying something like phones away.

According to Student A, within five minutes of beginning the LOTE exam, Mr.Tillman caught him while he took a photograph of the exam and sent it to approximately

five or six classmates. Student A explained that he was sending the photo to students

whom he believed could provide useful assistance on the essay portion of the exam.Student A stated that Mr. Teitel was walking by the [class]room at roughly the same

time that Mr. Tillman caught him. Mr. Teitel then entered the room and, in front of

[Student As classmates], asked Do you have a phone on you? Give it to me. WhenStudent A questioned, Why?, Mr. Teitel replied, Because Im the Principal.Following this, Student A relinquished his cell phone to the Principal; he then

accompanied Mr. Teitel to the main office.

Student A stated that, once he was in the Principals office, Ms. Damesek arrived.

According to Student A, Ms. Damesek told me I could finish my test. When Student A

questioned why he would he should take the time to finish the test, Ms. Damesekremarked something to the effect of, It doesnt matter, just fill in [Scantron] bubbles. It

was Student As stated belief that, as he worked on completing his LOTE exam, Ms.

Damesek and Mr. Teitel were attempting to retrieve information from his iPhone. He

stated that, at a certain point in time, they received assistance from Mr. Wong, the tech

9Ms. Arora has been identified as chemistry teacher Sushma Arora; the proctoring paperwork provided by Ms. Damesek

indicates that Ms. Arora and Ms. Roz Bierig, Biology teacher, proctored Student As ELA exam.10

According to the paperwork provided by Ms. Damesek, Neil Wang and Robert Rosen were the teachers initially

assigned to proctor Student As LOTE classroom; Mr. Tillman has been identified as Social Studies teacher Dan Tillman.11

Student A was not certain who had apprised him of such.


5/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-5-

guy, who tried to download data from Student As phone onto a school computer.12

Student A was also told that his father was being called to the school.

At an undetermined point in time prior to Father As arrival, Mr. Teitel askedStudent A why he had done it. Student A, who understood the inquiry to mean whyd

you cheat on the LOTE, told his Principal that he was sorry. Once Father A was

present, Mr. Teitel announced to both Student and Father A, Theres no way Im

keeping him at Stuy.

Student A stated that, when he and Father A returned to the school on June 19,

2012,13

Ms. Damesek spoke about his having to leave the school before it hits ThePost. In saying this, Student A believed that Ms. Damesek was referencing him having

used his cell phone to disseminate information to classmates during multiple exams.

During this conversation, Ms. Schindler, Student As guidance counselor, appeared andsuggested that she would handle the paperwork.14 Mr. Teitel, Ms. Damesek, and Ms.

Schindler then told Student A, Youre going to leave the school. There are two ways

its going to happen: a transportation transfer or you tell [officials], Im worried Imgoing to get beat up. It was Student As contention that Mr. Teitel vowed that, if an

administrator from any other school called Stuyvesant asking about Student A, he wouldnot say anything about cheating. Student A was then given his whole file, and

directed to go to a DOE Enrollment Office to speak with a representative about affectinga transfer.

Student A stated that, at Mr. Teitels advice, on June 19, 2012, he and Father Atraveled to a Manhattan Enrollment Office where they interfaced with an unidentified

male employee. Despite speaking with the Enrollment official about the possibility of

Student A transferring from Stuyvesant, Student A stated that he did not provide theenrollment officer with any paperwork.

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

Student As phone records:

Based upon a subpoena prepared by SCI, OSI was granted access to Student As

telephone records for all activity on his cellular phone between June 1, 2012 at 5:17:54AM and June 30, 2012 at 9:43:18 AM.15 The records reflect both outgoing and incoming

communication.

12Mr. Wong has been identified as Edward Wong, Assistant Principal of Technology Services.

13At this point during Student As interview, Father A interjected, explaining that they had returned to Stuyvesant so that

[Student A] could apologize for having cheated.14

Ms. Schindler has been identified as guidance counselor Mazra Schindler.15

A copy of this record is enclosed in this case file for reference.


6/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-6-

Communication during the June 13, 2012 Physics Regents exam, administered between

roughly 1:15 and 4:15 PM:16

It appears that, at 1:14 PM, Student A sent one text message simultaneously toapproximately 50 recipients thought to be members of a pre-determined group

distribution list.17 Outbound messages appear to be sent throughout the duration of the

exam period. By the undersigned investigators count, during the three hour period in

which the Physics Regents exam was being administered, 1017 messages were sent fromStudent As phone and 37 incoming messages were received.

Communication during the June 14, 2012 U.S. History Regents exam, administered

between roughly 9:15 AM and 12:15 PM:

Based upon his phone records, in the minutes leading up to the administration ofthe U.S. History exam, Student A sent a series of consecutive messages, not to group

distribution list, but, rather, to specific telephone numbers. Beginning at 8:49 AM,

Student A sent 40 consecutive messages to XXX-XX-XX50; no incoming messages werereceived in response. Student A then sent 36 consecutive messages to XXX-XX-XX50;

no incoming messages were received. This pattern repeated itself up until roughly 9:16AM, such that 17 additional phone numbers received similar individualized blasts.

By the undersigned investigators count, it appears that Student A sent a total of

796 text messages to 28 different recipients between 8:49 AM and 12:15 PM; during this

time period he also received 14 messages. However, based upon the timing of these textmessages, it does not appear as if Student A sent a text message to a group distribution

list during the administration of the U.S. History Regents exam.

Communication during the June 15, 2012 ELA Regents, administered between roughly

9:15 AM and 12:15 PM:

The undersigned investigators tally revealed that Student A sent out 30individual text messages while the ELA exam was being administered. His phone

records also indicate that he received 24 incoming messages during this three-hour period

of time.

Communication during the June 18, 2012 LOTE exam, administered between roughly

12:30 and 3:30 PM:

According to his phone records, between 12:17 and 1:49 PM, Student A received

ten messages, from seven different phone numbers. The next message was not received

16According to Margaret Reardon, Associate Education Analyst, Office of Assessment, DOE, students who have finished

a Regents exam are permitted to leave the examination room 45 minutes after the exam began. Randi Damesek,

Stuyvesants testing coordinator, indicated that students are permitted to leave an examination room after one hour and

45-minutes. As such, even with the available evidence, it is impossible to determine Student As (or any students)

whereabouts during the later portion of the administration of any Regents exam.17

Text messages that were sent at intervals of ten seconds or shorter were considered part of a group distribution list;

those sent at intervals that exceeded ten seconds were not considered part of a list. To illustrate, messages sent at 1:13:02,

1:13:08, and 1:13:15 would be considered a part of a distribution list, but messages sent at 1:13:02 and 1:13:13 would not.


7/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-7-

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

Father A:

At the close of Student As July 30, 2012 OSI interview, Father A who had been

present during his sons interview spoke with Investigators Boyles and Hughes in the

presence of Student A. He confirmed that he had appeared at Stuyvesant on June 18,2012, at the request of an administrator. Upon his arrival, Father A spoke with Mr. Teitel

who told him, Hes not staying in my school.

Father A explained that he and Student A returned to Stuyvesant on June 19 th, as

Father A wanted for Student A to apologize for having cheated. Father A stated that he

spoke with Mr. Teitel on June 19th

, imploring him to keep Student A at Stuyvesant. Inresponse, the Principal said, Im not going to listen any more. Hes not staying in my

school. Mr. Teitel then put [Father and Student A] in touch with a guidance

counselor.

According to Father A, after the incident was reported in the New York press,Jie Zhang called him to discuss Student As status at Stuyvesant.

18Father A said that Ms

Zhang asked if [Student A] had a safety problem, to which Father A indicated that hedid not. Ms. Zhang responded by saying she could help. Ms. Zhang also requested

that Father A put in writing that Student A doesnt have a safety problem. During

this telephone conversation, Ms. Zhang had explained to Father A that she was leavingfor China, but that she would touch base with him upon her return. At that time of Father

As OSI interview, he had only spoken with Ms. Zhang that one time.

Father A stated that, on the last day of school, Ms. Schindler notified him, We

couldnt do a transportation transfer.19 She then provided Father A with Student As file

in addition to safety transfer paperwork. Father A recalled, The Principal signed [thepaperwork] in front of me and I left. Father A confirmed that he and Student A werelater rejected by the Enrollment Office, whose representative did not approve Student

As transfer. Father A clarified that he did not know why the transfer was denied, but

offered that he was satisfied with the result, as he wanted Student A to remain atStuyvesant.

Childrens First Network (CFN) personnel:

Jie Zhang, Network Leader:20

Ms. Zhang was interviewed by Investigators Hughes and Small at OSI on July 26,

2012. At that time, she explained that she learned of the reported cheating incident

when she received a call from Mr. Charles Amundsen, the Cluster Leader, on Monday,

18At the time of said phone call, Ms. Zhang was Stuyvesants Network Leader; in August 2012 she was appointed as the

new Stuyvesant Principal.19

It is believed that Father A is referencing June 27, 2012, the last day of school for all students.20

Effective August 6, 2012, Ms. Zhang became Stuyvesants Interim-Acting Principal.


8/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-8-

June 25, 2012, at approximately 6:00 PM. After Mr. Amundsen explained that theDOEs Press Office had received a call from a reporter inquiring about Stuyvesant, Ms.

Zhang notified the Cluster Leader that she did not know anything about the incident in

question. She then called Mr. Teitel.

According to Ms. Zhang, during the evening of June 25, Mr. Teitel confirmed

that, Yes, kids were caught cheating, explaining, We notified parents. We took care

of it. Mr. Teitel did not indicate the specific exams during which the students hadcheated. Ms. Zhang then notified Mr. Teitel that the incident was in the news, and

asked him to put in writing how he had handled the incident thus far. Ms. Zhang then

called Mr. Amundsen to apprise him of what she had learned; it was at this time that Mr.Amundsen requested that Ms. Zhang report to Stuyvesant the following day.

Ms. Zhang confirmed that she traveled to Stuyvesant on the morning of June 26,2012; before arriving at the school, she learned that Ms. Zaharakis was going to be

holding a conference call of which Mr. Teitel was a participant later that day. Upon

arriving at the school, Ms. Zhang stated that she sat with the Principal, and asked himto detail the events leading up to when Student A got caught cheating. Prior to his

participation in the conference call, Mr. Teitel explained to Ms. Zhang that, before theadministration of the LOTE exam possibly on Friday June 15

th he had received a

report from a student warning him that cheating will take place on an upcoming exam.It was at roughly this point during their conversation that the conference call began.

Once the call started, Mr. Teitel explained to Ms. Zaharakis and various other callparticipants that, on the day that Student A was caught cheating on the LOTE exam, he

called a cabinet meeting during which it was determined that a proctor would be

added to the room in which Student A was scheduled to take his exam. According tothe account provided by Mr. Teitel, Student A was caught trying to send a message out

[from a cell phone]. [Initially] the student refused to give up the phone. Mr. Teitel also

clarified that Student A was given the opportunity to finish taking the LOTE exam. Whilethe student was completing his exam, Stuyvesants Assistant Principal of Organization(APO) began checking Student As phone.21 According to Mr. Teitel, Ms. Damesek

then began to record names of students [Student A] sent massive emails out to. During

the conference call, Mr. Teitel estimated that Student As group message was sent to asmany as 69 recipients.

Ms. Zhang stated that, during the conference call, Mr. Teitel recounted how, onJune 18, he called Father A, who agreed to travel to Stuyvesant to retrieve Student A.

While the father was en route, Ms. Damesek continued to work with the data on Student

As phone. Ms. Zhang recalled, I think it took hours to record [student] names. Mr.

Teitel explained that, once Father A arrived at Stuyvesant, he had a conversation withthe father about transferring [Student A] to another school. Ms. Zhang also recalled

that Mr. Teitel told the participating members of the conference call that, with Student

and Father As consent, the students cell phone remained at the school.

21It has been established that Stuyvesants APO is Randi Damesek.


9/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-9-

At this point during her OSI interview, Ms. Zhang told Investigators Hughes andSmall that, after Student and Father A left Stuyvesant, I think they [Mr. Teitel and Ms.

Damesek] reviewed the phone and took names then, in the middle of this, they realized

they should look into [the] content of each particular text exchange, including the timesthat the messages were sent, as well as whether the recipient had responded to Student A.

According to Ms. Zhangs understanding of Mr. Teitels reported version of events,

They got through possibly 10 or 12 kids recording the content [of their exchanges with

Student A] when, all of a sudden, the information [on the phone] disappeared. Uponquestioning, Ms. Zhang told Investigators Hughes and Small her belief that Student As

text messaging effected all three Regents exams: Physics, U.S. History, and ELA, in

addition to the LOTE exam. This is, in sum and substance, all that Ms. Zhang recalled ofthe conference call in which Mr. Teitel participated on June 26, 2012. She clarified that

she, personally, was not actively participating [in the call], and, instead, was just

listening.

Ms. Zhang stated that, at the conclusion of the call, Ms. Zaharakis instructed Mr.

Teitel to interview the kids who had been identified as having been in communicationwith Student A during the administration of any Regents exam.

Following the telephone call, Ms. Zhang asked Mr. Teitel whether he had filed

any OORS reports regarding this or any related incident.22

When Mr. Teitel indicatedthat he had not, Ms. Zhang instructed him to prepare and enter the reports. She detailed,

We reported [it] immediately after the conference call. It was at this time that Mr.

Teitel also admitted to Ms. Zhang that, in addition to Student A having been caughtcheating, the school had identified that there was cheating on the Physics Regents

exam. Ms. Zhang clarified that OORS reports were then filed regarding the catching of

Student A using his phone during the LOTE exam, as well as the reported cheating on thePhysics exam.23

According to Ms. Zhang, during the evening of June 26, 2012, she participated inanother conference call; she recalled that Mr. Teitel, Mr. Fox, and Superintendent TamikaMatheson were also on said call. Ms. Zhang detailed that it was during this call that Ms.

Matheson admitted that, on June 18, 2012 the day that Student A was caught using his

cell phone during the LOTE exam, Mr. Teitel called her to report the incident. Accordingto Ms. Matheson, after learning of the incident, she instructed Mr. Teitel to follow up on

the incident. Ms. Zhang told Investigators Hughes and Small that Mr. Teitel never

shared that he had reached out to Ms. Matheson regarding student cheating.

Ms. Zhang detailed that, by the conclusion of the conference call, she had been

identified as the person who would contact [Student As] family. Ms. Zhang stated that

her purpose in contacting Father A was to enable [Student A] to stay at Stuyvesant.Ms. Zhang confirmed that she did speak with Father A to discuss the possibility of

Student A staying at Stuyvesant. She told Investigators Hughes and Small that she had

spoken to Father A once, via telephone, prior to leaving the country for a personalvacation. During a conversation, held during the evening of June 26, 2012, Father A

22OORS reports are those that are filed using the DOEs Online Occurrence Reporting System.

23Copies of said reports are enclosed in this case file for reference. Additionally, it should be noted that student cheating

on the Physics exam is not being addressed in this investigative report.


10/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-10-

apprised Ms. Zhang that the school had given [him] information encouraging [StudentA] to transfer. Ms. Zhang explained to Father A that she was soon to leave the country,

but that, upon her return, she would work with him in an effort to keep Student A at

Stuyvesant. Ms. Zhang stated that June 26, 2012 was the last time that she was in anycommunication with Father A.

Ms. Zhang also recalled that, by the end of the June 26, 2012 evening conference

call, it had also been determined that Mr. Teitel needed to interview each student whohad been involved in the incident to gain a better understanding of what, if anything, the

students knew about Student As cheating. Ms. Zhang stated that, between the

conference call and the [following] morning, the school developed an interviewprotocol; she did not participate in the drafting of any interview questions. Ms. Zhang

did, however, report to Stuyvesant on June 27, 2012, when approximately 52 students

were to be interviewed.24

Regarding the events of June 27, Ms. Zhang described that Mr. Teitel and Ms.

Damesek conducted the student interviews together. In the middle of the interviews,the Principal got called to do something, prompting Ms. Damesek to request that Ms.

Zhang sit in on the remaining student interviews. Ms. Zhang stated that she was presentwhen Ms. Damesek interviewed approximately ten students. According to Ms. Zhang,

she observed while the APO asked questions from a questionnaire, and took notes. Afterthe questionnaire was filled out, Ms. Damesek then requested that the students write

statements reflecting their version of events. Regarding the information elicited from the

students, Ms. Zhang described that everyone [all of the students] said they got it [thetext], knew [Student A] was cheating and deleted the message and didnt use it [the

message] to cheat. She recalled Ms. Damesek counseling each student, stating

something to the effect of, This is not what we expect out of you. This hasconsequences. You might lose a privilege.

Ms. Zhang explained that copies of all of the questionnaires and writtenstatements were provided to DOE Deputy Counsel Robin Greenfield at the close of theday. She also stated that, following these interviews, she called Ms. Zaharakis to give

summaries of what had been discovered. At that time, Ms. Zaharakis requested that

attempts be made to interview all remaining students. Ms. Zaharakis also requestedcopies of the any notes and/or statements taken during the interviews; Ms. Zhang recalled

directing Ms. Zaharakis to speak with Robin Greenfield to obtain said documents.

At the conclusion of her interview, Ms. Zhang relayed that she did read the letter

sent to parents, notifying them that their childrens test scores had been invalidated. She

offered her belief that individuals at [the] Central [DOE office] had read and approved

the letter before it was mailed to Stuyvesant parents.

24Ms. Zhang stated that she and Mr. Teitel decided to interview students when they came to the main office to retrieve

their report cards.


11/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-11-

June 25, 2012 email correspondence sent from Mr. Teitel to Ms. Zhang at 6:35 PM,

and forwarded by Ms. Zhang to Mr. Amundsen at 6:48 PM:

Dear Jie,

This email is only for in house use.

Last weekend I received an email from a female student indicating that a particular malestudent was involved in cheating.

She indicated that he was going to cheat again during the LOTE exam on Monday

morning.

I called an emergency cabinet meeting to discuss the matter.

It was agreed that we would send in a very strong proctor to his exam room. The teacher

knew the situation.

Sure enough, the student tried to text during the exam. The teacher asked for the phone,

but the student refused.

I was called to the room, and I removed the student to my conference room to continue

the exam. I took his cell phone.

While the student continued the exam, we discovered through his cell phone inbox that

numerous students were involved in sending and receiving texts [sic] messages with him.

I have a list of about 80 student names. On Friday I sent home a letter to parents

informing them that I will take some action. The letters speaks to extra-curriculare [sic]

activities and positions of leadership such as our Big Sib program and ARiSTA.

I do not have a copy of the letter at home.

Stan

DOE administrative personnel:25

Tamika Matheson, High School Superintendent:

Investigator Hughes interviewed Ms. Matheson, via telephone, on September 6,

2012. At that time Ms. Matheson explained that she has been the District 2Superintendent since October 2, 2011.

Ms. Matheson explained that she first learned that a Stuyvesant student had beencaught cheating on a Regents exam when she received an email from Mr. Teitel on June

25Stanley Teitel submitted his resignation from the Department in August of 2012, effective September 1, 2012, and,

therefore, did not participate in an OSI interview.


12/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-12-

18, 2012. During her interview, Ms. Matheson forwarded Investigator Hughes a copy ofsaid email, which is transcribed below:

From: Teitel Stanley (02M475)

Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 2:20 PM

To: Matheson Tamika

Subject: Re: Cheating

Dear Ms. Matheson,

Please call me as soon as you can. HURRY

Stan

Ms. Matheson told Investigator Hughes that she phoned Mr. Teitel within an hour of

having received the above-transcribed email. At that time, Mr. Teitel apprised her that

he had received an email from a student [indicating] that another student was textinganswers or pictures of Regents exam questions. Upon explaining as such, Mr. Teitel

told Ms. Matheson, We are looking into it. It was Ms. Mathesons stated impressionthat by we, Mr. Teitel meant him and his APO.

In reaction Mr. Teitels news, Ms. Matheson spoke to him about cell phone

protocol, namely that, per DOE policy, students are not allowed to have cell phones

during the school day. Ms. Matheson recalled Mr. Teitel telling her that Stuyvesantteachers had been diligent and proactive regarding cell phones. After hearing this, Ms.

Matheson offered, You know youre going to have to report this. Ms. Matheson

acknowledged that she did not state to whom Mr. Teitel was to report the incident ofstudent cheating, nor did she explain how he was supposed to make such a report. Upon

questioning, Ms. Matheson told Investigator Hughes that she considered her comment

about reporting to be a strong recommendation as opposed to a directive. She furtherexplained that, because Mr. Teitel was a veteran Principal, at the time, she believed thathe would have known to whom and how to report the incident.

During her OSI interview, Ms. Matheson was asked to detail to whom shebelieved Mr. Teitel should have reported the incidence of student cheating. In response

she stated, If he [would have] asked, I would have had him call his Senior Field

Counsel, Network Leader, the Division of Assessment and Academics, and to file anOORS report.

Ms. Matheson stated her belief that, after receiving the above-referenced email

and holding a brief telephone conversation with Mr. Teitel on June 18, 2012, she did notinteract with Mr. Teitel in any capacity until news of the Stuyvesant cheating scandal

was covered in the New York City press on June 25, 2012, after which she participated in

a conference call about the incident. According to Ms. Matheson, on June 25th

at 6:46PM, she was ccd on an email that Mr. Teitel sent to Marge Feinberg, Deputy Press

Secretary.26

Ms. Matheson could not recall the specific circumstances that prompted Mr.

26A copy of the email that Ms. Matheson forwarded to Investigator Hughes is enclosed in this case file for reference.


13/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-13-

Teitel to send the email, but told Investigator Hughes that it is standard protocol forPrincipals to communicate with Ms. Feinberg when information about their school

appears in the press. Ms. Matheson stated that, that same evening, at 6:53 PM, Ms.

Feinberg ccd her on an email message that she sent to Mr. Teitel, which contained a linkto theNew York Daily News article mentioning Stuyvesants cheating scandal.

27

Ms. Matheson reported that, in the days following June 25, 2012, she spoke with

both Donald Conyers, Senior Supervising Superintendent, and Shael Suransky, ChiefAcademic Office, regarding that which she knew of this incident. She also participated in

a conference call on which both Mr. Teitel and Ms. Zaharakis were participants. Ms.

Matheson stated that, at some point following the incident under investigation, she andStuyvesant Assistant Principal Eric Grossman were designated to interface with

Stuyvesant parents regarding concerns, complaints, and/or inquiries that they had about

this incident.

Upon questioning, Ms. Matheson clarified that, after June 18, 2012, she did not

follow-up with Mr. Teitel regarding what steps, if any, he took to report the occurrence ofstudent cheating. Likewise, Mr. Teitel did not seek her counsel regarding any form of

investigation into the matter of student cheating, nor did he ask for her input regardingany communication that he had with Stuyvesant parents regarding the incident under

investigation.

Despina Zaharakis, former Senior Executive Director, Strategic Initiatives/Student

Systems:

Investigator Hughes interviewed Ms. Zaharakis, via telephone, on July 12, 2012.

At that time, she explained that she had learned of the Stuyvesant scandal through thenewspaper. She estimated that she had read an online edition of an article released at

approximately 4:00 AM on Tuesday, June 26, 2012. In response, during the morning of

June 26, Ms. Zaharakis reached out to Stuyvesants Cluster Leader, Mr. Amundsen, whoindicated that he didnt know anything about the incident. Likewise, a Clustercontact, Thomas Fox, expressed that he had no knowledge of the incident. Ms.

Zaharakis recalled that she contacted an individual affiliated with the Office of School

and Youth Development (OSYD), who apprised her that no OORS report had beenfiled about the incident.28

Adina Lopatin, Deputy Chief Academic Officer, Performance:

Investigators Boyles and Hughes interviewed Ms. Lopatin on July 19, 2012 at

OSI. At that time, she explained that she had learned of the Stuyvesant cheating

scandal when theNew York Times made a press inquiry; it was Ms. Lopatins statedbelief that the inquiry was made on Monday, June 25, 2012. Ms. Lopatin indicated that

no one in her office had been apprised of this incident prior to this inquiry.

27A copy of this email is included in this case file.

28An OORS report was filed on June 14, 2012, concerning an incident in which two students were caught cheating on a

Physics exam neither of the students mentioned in said report was Student A.


14/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-14-

Upon request, she outlined that, normally, after a Principal learns that a studenthas cheated on a standardized test, the Principal reports it to the Borough Assessment

Director and to the State. Ms. Lopatin detailed that, part of the [Borough Assessment

Directors] job is to help with student-on-student cheating. Ms. Lopatin stated thatPrincipals are educated about this policy through a handbook that the Office of

Assessment issues at the beginning of every school year. Regular updates are also

provided to Principals through the Principals Portal.29

Ms. Lopatin further explained

that Principals are mandated to follow SED guidelines. In Ms. Lopatins estimation,the SED guidelines are parallel to those created by the DOE with regard to student

cheating. Ms. Lopatin stated that, as per both DOE and SED guidelines, attempting to

cheat is grounds to invalidate a students exam grade.

Ms. Lopatin stated that she participated in a conference call on June 26, 2012 to

discuss with Mr. Teitel how he had reacted to Student As having cheated on the LOTEexam. Ms. Lopatin provided Investigators Boyles and Hughes with the notes that she

took during this call.30 The following individuals also participated in the conference call:

Ms. Amundsen, Ms. Zhang, Ms. Zaharakis, Mr. Mull,31

Ms. Damesek, and Mr. Teitel.Ms. Lopatin recalled that Mr. Teitel had shared with the callers that he had first learned

of alleged student cheating when he received an email on June 16, 2012 from a studentsaying a student was cheating and sending exams to other students. Mr. Teitel explained

that he then called an emergency cabinet meeting on June 18, at which time it wasdetermined that a special proctor would be placed in the classroom in which Student A

was to take his LOTE exam.

Mr. Teitel told the callers that Student A was caught using his cell phone during

the administration of the exam. Mr. Teitel then personally responded to the classroom to

escort Student A from the room. It was at this time that Ms. Damesek got involved in thematter, as she assisted Mr. Teitel in looking through Student As phone. Ms. Damesek

then began taking notes regarding specific text messages that she found in Student As

phone. According to that which was discussed during the conference call, it wasdiscovered that Ms. Damesek recorded the names of 69 students whom she determined tobe involved in the texting. According to Ms. Lopatins notes, 12 additional students

did not respond to [Student As] text. All information was recorded on a spreadsheet.

Ms. Lopatins notes also document, In the case of the LOTE the student took [and sent]pictures of the LOTE essay question to two other students. The students wrote essays

and posted pictures on the students Facebook account. Also pictures of Scantron sheets

and answer choices for the Physics, US [History], and English Regents and in class finalswere being exchanged among students taking the exam during the exam. The principal

does not know what these pictures were of or specifically which students were involved

in which exams because the data were [sic] erased. Mr. Teitel also told callers that, at

29According to the DOE website, the Principals Portal is an online tool that allows leaders to quickly and easily find the

tools, resources, and systems needed to make a meaningful improvement in their students achievement. Ms. Lopatin

later provided OSI with a copy of a Principals Portal post dated June 8 [2012] which outlines June Regents Exams and

RCTs Update: Information from NYSED. A copy of this post is included in this case file for reference.30

A copy of Ms. Lopatins notes is enclosed in this case file for reference. It should also be noted that, at the time of her

OSI interview, Ms. Lopatin also provided OSI with copies of the student interview questionnaires and written statements.31

Mr. Mull has been identified as Niket Mull, Executive Director, Office of Assessment, Division of Academics,

Performance and Support.


15/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-15-

some point during the afternoon of June 18, he had contacted Ms. Matheson to appriseher of the situation.

Mr. Teitel then explained to the participants of the conference call that, per hisrequest, Father A had appeared at Stuyvesant on June 18, 2012, at which time he

permitted the school to keep Student As cell phone. However, according to Mr. Teitel,

all of the data was erased from the phone soon after Student A left the school building.

Mr. Teitel then told the conference call participants of his decision to send a letter hometo the parents of the 69 students identified as having received messages from Student A.

The letter informed the parents that their children would not be able to participate in

after school activities as a result of their participation in cheating.

The Principal also told the members of the conference call that proctors have not

reported that they saw students using phones, and that there are regular announcementsmade to students reminding them that cell phones are prohibited during the

administration of exams. According to Ms. Lopatins notes, Mr. Teitel had claimed, If a

proctor had seen a student using a phone they [sic] would have reported it.

During the conference call, Mr. Teitel told the participants that, during thegrading of the Physics exam, teachers discovered that students wrote the same sentences

on exams, prompting Mr. Teitel to invalidate the 4 affected exams. Mr. Teitel sharedwith the callers that Student A was one of the students whose Physics exam was

invalidated on these grounds.

According to Ms. Lopatin, at the conclusion of the conference call, Mr. Teitel

explained that, during the morning of June 26, he wrote a letter to the SEDs Steve Katz.

Mr. Teitel also claimed to be in communication with Mr. Katz regarding the testingimproprieties. Mr. Teitel stated his belief that an OORS report was filed regarding the

Regents improprieties; he expressed that he did not need to contact SCI as no allegations

of adult misconduct had been made.

Mr. Teitel concluded the call by indicating that students had not yet [been]

questioned about having received text messages during the administration of

standardized exams. It was at this time that Mr. Teitel was instructed to immediatelybegin conducting student interviews. Ms. Lopatins notes reflect, Principal cannot yet

know whether students cheated. Can begin talking to students today and tomorrow but

may not be able to talk to all students today and tomorrow. Ms. Lopatin recalled thatMr. Teitel seemed to have questions about the student interviews, including expressing

his concern that students arent just going to tell [him] what kind of cheating occurred.

Ms. Lopatin explained that, during the conference call, Mr. Teitel was counseled to ask

[the students] what their experience was. She clarified that, while Mr. Teitel wasinstructed to conduct an investigation, he did not receive any explicit guidance regarding

how to investigate. Ms. Lopatin stated that it was determined that, on June 27, 2012,

Mr. Mull would report to the school to assist Mr. Teitel with the investigation.

Ms. Lopatin told Investigators Boyles and Hughes that, according to the literature

that the DOE and the SED provides to Principals regarding student cheating, whencheating is suspected on a Regents or city-wide exam, the Principal must do an


16/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-16-

investigation. She outlined, The SED requires investigation. After acknowledging assuch, Ms. Lopatin offered that, to her knowledge, the scope or the manner in which this

investigation is to be conducted is not spelled out in the Reg[ulation]s. Upon further

questioning, Ms. Lopatin indicated that neither the DOE nor SED guidelines are explicitabout when a Principal must report student cheating. She offered, I dont think he

exactly violated any rules, but it would have been best to notify us more quickly. Ms.

Lopatin continued by stating that a week should not have gone by before Mr. Teitel

made an affirmative decision that student cheating had occurred.

Ms. Lopatin relayed her belief that, in sending a letter home to the parents of 69

students, Mr. Teitel had publicly notified individuals of the cheating without firstcontacting the appropriate DOE personnel about the incident. She further offered, Our

concern during the conference call was that he had taken action regarding revoking

privileges without actually investigating what had happened with the test. Ms. Lopatinoffered that it was the Principals position that, as the phone was erased, he couldnt

investigate any further than that which had already been done. Ms. Lopatin also told

Investigators Boyles and Hughes that, in her opinion, The Principal knew [the cheating]spanned across exams, but not which students received texts on which day.

Following her OSI interview, Ms. Lopatin emailed Investigators Boyles and

Hughes information that had been released by the SED to Principals of Public,Nonpublic, and Charter Schools in a letter dated June 2012. On page five of this seven

page communication, the SED mandates the principal must reportin writing [a]ll

student infractions of the Departments policy prohibiting the use of cell phones andother communication devices during State exams.32

Niket Mull, Executive Director, Office of Assessment, Division of Academics,

Performance and Support (DAPS):

Mr. Mull was interviewed by Investigators Boyles and Hughes on July 17, 2012at 49-51 Chambers Street. Following his interview, he provided OSI withdocumentation; when relevant, said paperwork is summarized and integrated into Mr.

Mulls interview summary.33

Mr. Mull first learned of the Stuyvesant cheating scandal on June 25, 2012,

when he received a series of emails that had been forwarded to him by Ms. Zaharakis.

The initial email in the string was written by DOE Press Secretary Erin Hughes, at 1:49PM on Monday, June 25, and reads as follows:

Hello,

We received a call from a NY Times reporter who spoke to a parent at Stuyvesant HS

about an alleged cheating incident involving possibly 100 students (11th

graders?) and

organized text messaging. She said that the students used their phones to share/text

answers to each other during a language exam that took place on or around June 18.

32A copy of this letter can be found in this case file.

33Copies of all documents that Mr. Mull provided are enclosed in this case file.


17/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-17-

According to the parent and the reporter, several students were disciplined and one was

expelled. The discipline included a letter that went out to those that were caught from the

principle [sic] saying that they would not be able to leave campus for lunch next year.

Do we have any info on this incident?

Thanks,

Erin Hughes, Press Secretary

Mr. Mull stated that, at the time, he was unaware of the incident that Ms. Hughes

referenced. He forwarded Ms. Zaharakis message to members of his team, asking ifanyone had heard of the cheating. According to Mr. Mull, neither Grace Pepe, Director

of Assessment Operations, nor Marie Busiello, Borough Assessment Implementation

Director, had heard of any such incident.

Mr. Mull explained that his next involvement in the Stuyvesant case was his

participation in a June 27 conference call; Mr. Amundsen, Ms. Zaharakis, Ms. Lopatin,Ms. Damesek, and Mr. Teitel were also participants. During this call, the Principal was

asked what happened? and on which exams? In response, Mr. Teitel explained thathe had received an anonymous tip that somebody was cheating and had a plan [to

cheat on] the LOTE. In response, Mr. Teitel said that he scheduled a cabinet meetingfor the morning of June 18, to create a plan to put a diligent proctor in the alleged

cheaters classroom. The Principal told the conference call participants that, part way

through the exam, the proctor sees [Student A] with his cell phone out. Following this,per SED protocol, Student A was removed from the examination classroom and was

permitted to finish his exam in the Principals office.

While Student A finished his exam, Mr. Teitel stated that he asked Ms. Damesek

to look through the students phone, at which time, she starts to see other texts that

were sent prior to the LOTE exam. To the best of Mr. Mulls recollection, Mr. Teitelestimated that there were approximately 80 or 81 phone numbers in [Student As]phone, but only 69 kids [had] responded to [Student As] email/text [including] two kids

[who] wrote answers and sent it [sic] back [to Student A]. Mr. Mull recalled that Mr.

Teitel had explained to the conference call participants that he had offered [Ms.Damesek] per session [money] to investigate data off the phone but that, all of a

sudden, the data disappeared. Mr. Mull clarified that, according to Mr. Teitel, the data

disappeared soon after Student A and his father, who had reported to the school at thePrincipals request, left the building.

According to Mr. Mull, participating members of the conference call asked Mr.

Teitel whether he had sent a letter home to Stuyvesant parents about the incident. ThePrincipal confirmed that he has sent the letter to the parents of the 69 students in

question. When he was asked why he did not notify or engage in conversation with the

SED prior to mailing the letter, Mr. Teitel explained, Im still doing my investigation.Were still figuring out who cheated on what exam. To Mr. Mulls recollection, it was

then determined that a few Central DOE staff members would report to Stuyvesant the

following day to assist Mr. Teitel with his investigation.


18/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-18-

Mr. Mull stated that, during a separate phone call on June 27 with SuperintendentMatheson, he learned that, at some point on June 18 after Student A had been caught, Mr.

Teitel had called Ms. Matheson to apprise her of the situation. Mr. Mull admitted to

Investigators Boyles and Hughes that he could not recall whether Ms. Matheson hadrelayed what her response to Mr. Teitel had been. Mr. Mull expressed that, during their

June 27 conference call, Mr. Teitel had made no mention of having called Ms. Matheson

on June 18.

On June 27, 2012, Mr. Mull appeared at Stuyvesant alongside of Rachael Teitel,

Office of Legal Services,34

and Karen Profenna from the CFN. Mr. Mull stated that,

while at the school, they interacted with both Mr. Teitel and Ms. Damesek. It was Mr.Mulls understanding that he, Ms. Teitel, and Ms. Profenna were present at the school to

try to figure out what happened. He recalled that he and Ms. Teitel sat in on two

student interviews, one at a time. Mr. Mull stated that he, personally, did not ask anyquestions, but, instead, remained quiet during the student interviews. He recalled that,

while Mr. Teitel was interviewing an unidentified student, the Principal had reprimanded

the student, If you did it on this exam, you deserve to have your exam invalidated. Hestated all student responses were recorded on a questionnaire and in written statements

prepared by each student.

In reviewing the student statements, Mr. Mull learned that kids mostly talkedabout [efforts to cheat on the] Physics, some LOTE, a few [U.S.] History [exams]. Mr.

Mull stated that, because the first capture of data [completed by Stuyvesant staff

members] wasnt specific enough to evidence when someone responded [to Student A],and there [exists] no tracking regarding when kids left the exam, it cannot be determined

if a student who opened his or her text was finished with [his or her] exam [at that time].

Before Mr. Mull left Stuyvesant on June 27, he was provided with copies of all of

the questionnaires and the student statements. Mr. Mull told Investigators Boyles and

Hughes that, after he left the school, he had no direct contact with Mr. Teitel.

Robin Greenfield, Deputy Counsel, Office of Legal Services:

Investigator Hughes interviewed Ms. Greenfield, via telephone, on July 26, 2012.Ms. Greenfield explained that, under the direction of Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, General

Counsel, she had called Mr. Teitel on June 26, 2012.35

The purpose of Ms. Greenfields

call was to determine whether the Principal had taken any statements regarding thealleged cheating incident. According to Ms. Greenfield, during that conversation, Mr.

Teitel told her that [he] had not intended to take statements. Ms. Greenfield

acknowledged to Investigator Hughes, He took statements only at our [the Legal

Offices] request.

During their conversation, Mr. Teitel told Ms. Greenfield that this whole

incident began after he received an email from Student Gindicating that Student A hadbeen cheating on Regents exams and had planned to cheat again. Mr. Teitel indicated

34No relation to Principal Teitel.

35It should be noted that Ms. Greenfield forwarded the notes that she took during her conversation with Mr. Teitel to

Investigator Hughes; copies of these notes are enclosed in this case file.


19/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-19-

that he responded to this news by calling a cabinet meeting prior to the administration ofthe LOTE exam, which resulted in his being able to alert a proctor to watch [Student

A]. After the proctor observed Student A using his phone during the exam, the student

was removed from the examination room, and, according to Ms. Greenfield, he waspossibly allowed to continue the exam. At the Principals request, Student A

relinquished his cell phone; Father A was also called to the school.

Mr. Teitel told Ms. Greenfield that, after Student A was removed from hisexamination room, two separate students sent LOTE exam answers to Student As phone.

At Mr. Teitels request, Ms. Damesek wrote down the names, texts, comments, and

possibly the phone numbers of those students with whom Student A had been in contact.According to Mr. Teitel, Ms. Damesek did not have the date or time [of the

correspondences] written down. As Ms. Greenfield relayed to Investigator Hughes, As

the Assistant Principal [Ms. Damesek] starts to record this, Dad [Father A] arrives,[Student A] leaves, and the phone gets wiped of data. Ms. Greenfield acknowledged

that she had asked Mr. Teitel why he didnt take statements from the kids suspected of

cheating, to which he responded that he didnt feel like [he] had proof. Ms. Greenfieldapprised Investigator Hughes, His remedy was to send out a letter. Ms. Greenfield also

added, The Principal told me [that] he told Dad [Father A] to get a safety transfer. Ms.Greenfields notes indicate that, upon learning this, she told Mr. Teitel that a safety

transfer would be inappropriate. In response, Mr. Teitel apparently remarked thatStudent A might get hurt if he stayed at Stuyvesant.

Upon request, Ms. Greenfield confirmed that Mr. Teitel did not seek her advice orcounsel regarding either the letter that he sent home to parents or his decision to

recommend a safety transfer for Student A.

Toward the end of their telephone conversation, Ms. Greenfield instructed Mr.

Teitel to take [student] statements. She explained to Investigator Hughes that she and

Ms. Lopatin had sent people to Stuyvesant to ensure that statements were taken. Ms.Greenfield clarified that Rachael Teitel was the member of the Legal Office who was sentto the school. Ms. Greenfield recalled telling Ms. Teitel to make certain that student

statements were taken. Upon questioning, she confirmed that there was no

conversation either with Principal Teitel or Ms. Teitel about being moreprescriptive with regard to taking [student] statements.

Ms. Greenfield acknowledged that Ms. Teitel and various members of the LegalOffice staff later reviewed the student statements and learned that they were sparse.

Ms. Greenfield stated, We reviewed [the statements] to determine who and what to

suspend [for], and who and what needed to retake [the Regents exams].

Ms. Greenfield stated that, after the statements were obtained, she did not have

any follow-up conversation with Mr. Teitel.


20/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-20-

Shael Suransky, Chief Academic Officer, DOE:

Investigator Hughes interviewed Mr. Suransky, via telephone, on July 12, 2012.

At that time, he stated that, as of the date of his OSI interview, he had not spoken directlywith Mr. Teitel about the incident under investigation.

Mr. Suransky detailed that he first learned of the alleged student cheating on June

25, 2012, when a member of the Press Office sent an email indicating that The New YorkTimes had made an inquiry into the alleged cheating at Stuyvesant.36 Mr. Suransky stated

that he then spoke with Ms. Jackson-Chase; Veronica Conforme, Chief Information

Officer; and Chancellor Walcott regarding how to respond to the press. According toMr. Suransky, after their conversation, it was determined that members of Stuyvesants

support Network, as well as a representative from the Legal Office, should report to the

school to try to compile information regarding what to tell the press, and what to do withthe tests.

Mr. Suransky explained that, initially, he and his colleagues thought that Mr.Teitel had not apprised anyone at the DOE of the student cheating; he stated that they

later learned that the Principal had told his Superintendent about the incident. Uponquestioning, Mr. Suransky detailed that it was Supervising Superintendent, Donald

Conyers, who had confirmed with Ms. Matheson that Mr. Teitel had, in fact, made heraware of the situation. Mr. Suransky told Investigator Hughes that, during a conversation

with Mr. Conyers, Ms. Matheson relayed that, at the time of incident, she had instructed

Mr. Teitel to report the student cheating. Following Mr. Conyers conversation withMs. Matheson, Mr. Suransky spoke with the Superintendent himself.37 During this

conversation, Ms. Matheson confirmed that she had instructed Mr. Teitel to call in the

incident of student cheating. Mr. Suransky did not recall whether he had asked Ms.Matheson to clarify where or whom Mr. Teitel was to call. He did remember Ms.

Matheson telling him that, because Mr. Teitel was an experienced Principal, she was

confident that he would know how to handle the situation.

Mr. Suransky told Investigator Hughes that, to the best of his knowledge, Ms.

Matheson was the only individual whom Mr. Teitel had made aware of the cheating he

had not reported or discussed the matter with any other DOE or SED official. Uponquestioning, Mr. Suransky stated that, in his opinion, Mr. Teitel should have notified both

the Borough Assessment Office and the SED about that which had occurred. Mr.

Suransky surmised, Mr. Teitel didnt go beyond reporting it to the Superintendent. Byacting as such, he failed to address [the incident] thoroughly, and, likewise, failed to

gather the evidence including the times [that] the texts were sent that would be

needed to determine which exams to invalidate.

36Mr. Suransky forwarded the email in question to Investigator Hughes; a copy of that correspondence is enclosed in this

case file.37

Mr. Suransky clarified that he did not seek out Ms. Matheson; rather, he encountered her at a Superintendents meeting

held on June 28, 2012.


21/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-21-

Donald Conyers, Senior Supervising Superintendent:

Mr. Conyers was interviewed, via telephone, by Investigators Boyles, Hughes,

and Small on July 25, 2012. At the beginning of his interview, Mr. Conyers emailedInvestigator Boyles a memorandum, sent on June 1, 2012 by Grace Pepe, Directory of

Assessment Operations.38 He told the undersigned investigators that said memorandum

was, in part, designed to alert Principals what a proctor should do if a student is caught

using a cell phone during an exam. Additionally, the memorandum outlined theexpectation of what Principals should do and [who] they should report [allegations of

student cheating] to.

An excerpt from the memo in question DAPS MEMORANDUM #12 (page 4):39

For Principals and Proctors:

Any student observed to be using any communication device while taking a State

examination must be directed to turn it off and put the device away immediately. To

allow for all possible outcomes of procedural due process, the student should be allowed

to complete the examination. The incident must be reported promptly to the school

principal. If the principal determines that the student was using a communication deviceduring the test administration, the students test must be invalidated. No score may be

calculated for that student. The incident must be reported in writing to the Office of State

Assessment, as is the case for all testing irregularities, misadministration, or other

violations of the State testing policy and procedures.

During his OSI interview, Mr. Conyers offered his understanding of the above-

mentioned memorandum, indicating that a proctor is supposed to respond to a student

[who is thought to be cheating, and is] supposed to determine if cheating occurred. Ifin fact, it is determined that a student cheated during the administration of a standardized

test, the Principal is to notify the SED, their [sic] CFN Assessment Liaison, and the

Superintendent. Mr. Conyers admitted, I dont know if, in the memo, a timeframe [toreport] is written. He further offered, Youd think itd be akin to the OORS 24-hourtimeframe.

Mr. Conyers confirmed that he had spoken with Ms. Matheson about the incidentunder investigation. Mr. Conyers stated that, per Mr. Suransky, he called Ms. Matheson

who then apprised him that, after Mr. Teitel had notified her that a student had used his

cell phone on an exam, she told him to report it and he said he would. Ms. Mathesonexplained to Mr. Conyers that [she] didnt follow up with [Mr. Teitel] because hes a

senior Principal and, therefore, should be familiar with the appropriate rules and

regulations. Mr. Conyers advised the undersigned investigators that he was satisfied

with [Ms. Mathesons] answer.

38A copy of said memorandum, Memo #12, is enclosed in this case file.

39It should be noted that, according to Ms. Pepe, Memo #12 applies to the administration of the LOTE exam. Despite

the fact that the LOTE is a city-wide test (as opposed to a SED exam), a students performance LOTE is used [to earn an]

advanced Regents diploma. As such, the rules and regulations outlined in Memo #12 govern the proper protocol

during the administration of the LOTE.


22/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-22-

At this point during his OSI interview, Mr. Conyers was asked questionsregarding his assessment of Mr. Teitels behavior following the Principals receipt of an

email alerting him to possible student cheating. Mr. Conyers explained that, As

Principal, [he] would have alerted all faculty [members] to ensure that they were aware ofthe allegation. He also stated that he should have taken steps to notify students [and]

proactively address the rules by globally telling all students about the cell phone rules

in place. Mr. Conyers expressed that, in meeting with all students taking the test in

question, he would have avoided targeting Student A. He emphasized that Student Ashould have been treated as innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Conyers did

acknowledge that he likely would have met with Student A about the suspicion or

rumor that he was going to cheat prior to his taking the LOTE exam.

Mr. Conyers told the undersigned investigators that, had he been in Mr. Teitels

position, he would have acted to prevent Student A from cheating, as opposed tocreating a system for catching him in the act. Mr. Conyers continued, As Principal, he

has a responsibility to ensure [that] no cheating occurs during tests.

Stuyvesant personnel Assistant Principals:

Jennifer Suri, Assistant Principal of Social Studies:

Ms. Suri was interviewed by Investigator Small, via telephone, on July 27, 2012.

At that time, she confirmed that she had attended a cabinet meeting on June 18, 2012,which was called in an effort to discuss what to do about the email that Mr. Teitel had

received, indicating that a student had planned to cheat on an upcoming exam.

According to Ms. Suri, Mr. Tillman caught the student in question. Following this, aletter was to be drawn up, informing parents of the students who had been involved in

possible cheating of the disciplinary action that would be taken. This was, in sum and

substance, all that Ms. Suri reported to know about the situation under investigation.

Raymond Wheeler, Assistant Principal of Music, Art, and Technology Education:

On August 10, 2012, Mr. Wheeler appeared at OSI alongside Robert Colon, CSARepresentative; he was interviewed by Investigators Boyles, Hughes, and Small. Mr.

Wheeler stated that he first learned that a student had cheated on a Regents exam during a

meeting held during Regents week. Mr. Wheeler remembered that Mr. Teitel hadcalled a cabinet meeting during which he mentioned an email he [had] received from a

student [that asserted that] a student was cheating in class. It was Mr. Wheelers stated

impression that the Principal was sharing this information with the Stuyvesant cabinet in

order to address the question, How are we going to handle it?

Mr. Wheeler told the undersigned investigators that the plan was to catch the

student cheating. When asked what steps were identified in order to affect said plan,Mr. Wheeler admitted, It wasnt concerning my department, so I wasnt really paying

attention. He did recall that Mr. Teitel and Ms. Damesek were leading the conversation

about the plan to catch the student in question. He could not recall whether minutes


23/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-23-

were taken during this cabinet meeting, but offered that the Principals secretary isresponsible for taking minutes and that she is usually present during cabinet meetings.

Mr. Wheeler reported that, a day or so after the first cabinet meeting, a secondmeeting was called to discuss the matter of a student cheating. Mr. Wheeler was unable

to identify the day of the week or the date on which said meeting took place, but

confirmed that it was before the cheating hit the newspaper. Upon questioning, Mr.

Wheeler confirmed that, to his recollection, no meeting was [ever] called to discuss anyprevious incidents of cheating. When asked about the impetus for this second cabinet

meeting, Mr. Wheeler offered his belief that the meeting was called so that Mr. Teitel

could let us [administrators] know what had occurred and what steps were taken toidentify students [who cheated].

According to Mr. Wheeler, during this second meeting, Mr. Teitel announced thatit was discovered that [Student A] was taking pictures of a [Regents] exam and sending

them [the photos] out. Mr. Wheeler remembered that Mr. Teitel notified the cabinet

that, as they had confiscated the phone, some names of the students who receivedStudent As texts had been recorded.

At this point during his OSI interview, Mr. Wheeler confirmed that he is the

Assistant Principal of Technology Education, and that he supervises Stuyvesants techstaff. Upon questioning, he indicated that he was never personally asked to assist in

retrieving information from Student As cell phone, and further offered that, to his

knowledge, none of his guys were asked to provide either their assistance or theiropinion regarding how best to obtain information from Student As phone.

Mr. Wheeler confirmed that, during the second cabinet meeting, it was announcedthat there were about 70 student names identified as having received Student As texts;

he was admittedly uncertain how they identified the 70. Upon questioning, Mr.

Wheeler indicated that there was no talk regarding what involvement the kids had inStudent As attempts to cheat on the exam. However, there was discussion regardingwhat to do with the students involved. Although he did not personally participate in

the discussion, Mr. Wheeler recalled that some of his colleagues suggested that the

roughly 70 students in question should have certain privileges taken away, such aslunch privileges and extra-curricular activities. To Mr. Wheelers knowledge, nothing

official [was] decided with regard to what, if any, punishment was to be given. Mr.

Wheeler did not recall any discussion regarding whether Student A should be transferredout of Stuyvesant.

This second cabinet meeting was the last time that Mr. Wheeler was privy to any

conversation about Student A and/or the cheating scandal. When asked if there wasany discussion about the incident after the story was revealed by the New York City

press, Mr. Wheeler a 10-month employee acknowledged, I dont even think I was in

school at that time.


24/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-24-

Scott Thomas, Assistant Principal of Physics and Chemistry:

Mr. Thomas appeared at OSI on September 27, 2012, at which time he was

interviewed by Investigator Hughes in the presence of Robert Colon, CSARepresentative. At that time, Mr. Thomas explained that the 2012-2013 school year will

be his 8th year at Stuyvesant; he has been an Assistant Principal for six years.

Upon questioning, Mr. Thomas told Investigator Hughes that he could recall acouple of instances during his tenure as the Assistant Principal of Physics in which a

Stuyvesant student was caught cheating on a Physics Regents exam. Mr. Thomas

explained that, in these instances, he immediately notified Mr. Teitel of the incident.Thereafter, he placed the exams in question into a folder, labeled the folder with the

students name(s) and identification number(s), and brought the folder to Mr. Teitel, who

would take care of it. Mr. Thomas explained that these were the steps that Mr. Teitelhad asked him to take any time a student was caught cheating.40 He further indicated that

he was never asked to notify any party SED or otherwise of any instance of cheating.

Mr. Thomas stated that, during the June 2012 administration of the Regents

exams, a new statewide policy was put into place, requiring schools to darken aninvalidated bubble on the Scantron answer sheets of those students who had been

caught cheating during an exam. Per policy, after that bubble was darkened, the Principalhad to sign next to the marking to confirm the schools decision to invalidate the exam.

The Scantron sheets are then to be taken to the programming office to be re-run

through the Scantron machine.

When asked about the June 2012 Physics Regents exam, Mr. Thomas explained

that, during the Wednesday, June 12, 2012 administration of the exam, a proctor caughttwo students cheating.41 Said proctor, whom Mr. Thomas did not identify, apprised him

of the incident at the end of the school day on June 12th. On June 13th, Mr. Thomas

darkened the invalidated bubble on the Scantron answer sheets of the exams inquestion, placed the exams into an envelope, labeled the envelope as required, andbrought the packet to Mr. Teitel, who then signed both of the Scantron answer sheets.

Mr. Thomas confirmed that he then took both Scantron sheets to the program office to be

officially invalidated by the Scantron machine. After returning the envelope to Mr.Teitel, Mr. Thomas took no further steps regarding this matter.

When asked whether he knew anything about Student As having cheated duringthe June 2012 administration of the Regents exams, Mr. Thomas confirmed that he did.

He explained that he first heard of the cheating in an email that Mr. Teitel sent to

Stuyvesant administrators during the weekend before June 17 [2012]. According to

Mr. Thomas, Mr. Teitel wrote the email to notify his cabinet that there would be anemergency meeting on [Monday,] June 18 [2012]. During that cabinet meeting, Mr.

Teitel told administrators that, over the weekend, he had received an email from a student

accusing [Student A] of cheating on [the] Physics and maybe other Regents [exams].Mr. Thomas stated that the email mentioned that Student A had used or will use his cell

40Mr. Thomas could not recall the student or the school year during which the first incident of cheating on the Physics

Regents exam occurred.41

Mr. Thomas clarified that neither student in question was Student A.


25/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-25-

phone to cheat. According to Mr. Thomas, during the meeting, Mr. Teitel asked him tolook into the allegation that Student A had cheated on the Physics exam. The Principal

also said something about a Dean going to see [Student A] during a test [that was going

to be] administered that afternoon.42

Mr. Thomas admitted that he was not sure whetherthe Dean in question was to watch Student A take the test, or to interview him about the

test.

At the conclusion of the cabinet meeting, Mr. Thomas spoke with Mr. Teitelabout what steps he needed to take to look into Student As Regents exam. According

to Mr. Thomas, Mr. Teitel instructed him to pull the file on the exams and look at

[Student As] exam and compare it with the student sitting next to him. Immediatelyafter this conversation, Mr. Thomas reviewed the Physics exams. As students taking the

Physics Regents exam sit in alphabetical order, Mr. Thomas was able to determine that

Student A was seated in seat 2 while taking the exam. As such, Mr. Thomas comparedStudent As multiple choice and short-answer responses to the students seated in seat 1

and seat 3. According to Mr. Thomas, Student As exam appeared to be exactly the

same as the student assigned to seat 1, both with regard to the multiple choice andshort answer responses. Mr. Thomas shared that even the language that the students used

evidenced exact matches. The exam belonging to the student assigned to seat 3 didnot evidence any similarities.

After making this discovery, Mr. Thomas called Mr. Teitel, who requested that

the Assistance Principal bring the exams in question to his office. Per policy, Mr.

Thomas placed the two exams in a folder, labeled the folder with the students names andidentification numbers, and brought them to Mr. Teitel. Additionally, per the 2012

statewide policy, he also darkened the invalidated bubble on both students Scantron

answer sheets. According to Mr. Thomas, Mr. Teitel signed both Scantron sheets, afterwhich they were taken to the schools programming office to be re-run through the

Scantron machine. Following this, Mr. Thomas returned all relevant examination

paperwork to Mr. Teitel. When asked, Mr. Thomas indicated that Mr. Teitel did notindicate what he was going to do with the two Regents exams in question.

Mr. Thomas stated that there was a second cabinet meeting held, during which

Mr. Teitel made mention of Student As having cheated; Mr. Thomas did not recall thesubject areas of the exams in question. It was Mr. Thomas stated belief that the meeting

was held on Friday, June 22, 2012. According to Mr. Thomas, during this meeting, Mr.

Teitel mentioned that they had found a cell phone on [Student A] and found evidencethat he had cheated. Mr. Thomas acknowledged that he could not recall the specific

nature of the conversation that followed, although he did remember that someone

mentioned that 70 students were involved in possible cheating; he further recalled that

several cell phones were mentioned. Mr. Thomas told Investigator Hughes that he wasnever involved in conversations about disciplinary action, and was unaware of what, if

any, punishment the students in question received.

42The exam in question is the LOTE exam.


26/56

OSI Case #12-5848



Telephone: 718 935 3800; Fax: 718 935 3931

-26-

Elizabeth Fong, Assistant Principal of Biology/Geo-Science:

Ms. Fong appeared at OSI on August 15, 2012, where she was interviewed by

Investigators Hughes and Small in the presence of Mr. Colon. At that time, she explainedthat she had initially learned that a Stuyvesant student had cheated on a standardized test

at an emergency cabinet meeting called by Mr. Teitel. Ms. Fong admitted that she was

uncertain of the date of said meeting, but did remember that it was held during

Regents. She stated that there was only one item on the agenda: the cheatingscandal. To the best of Ms. Fongs recollection, Mr. Teitel called the cabinet meeting

to let us know what happened [that] a student had used a phone to photograph

questions on the Spanish city-wide final. When asked, Ms. Fong admitted that shecould not recall how this cabinet meeting ending, stating, That was it. Upon

questioning, she stated that she could not recall attending any June 2012 cabinet meeting

held before the administration of the LOTE exam during which an allegation of possiblestudent cheating was discussed.

When asked whether she was aware of what, if any, disciplinary action was takenagainst Student A, Ms. Fong recalled, During the final cabinet meeting, the Principal

mentioned suspending [Student A]. Ms. Fong did not recall hearing Mr. Teitel or anyadministrator discuss or suggest Student As transfer from Stuyvesant, but did

remember that there was some discussion about what other school he might attend.When asked if there was also discussion regarding what, if any, disciplinary action would

be taken against the other Stuyvesant students, Ms. Fong explained, I believe there were

other students involved; I dont know the number, before offering her recollection thatthese students faced having their lunch and extra-curricular privileges taken away. She

did not recall hearing any mention of how the students in question were going to be

apprised of such punishment.

Ms. Fong told Investigators Hughes and Small that she has been an Assistant

Principal at Stuyvesant for 11 year

stuyvesant report 08 30 13 - final

Documents