Last week, David Abrams, the New York State Assistant Commissioner of Education, claimed there was no need to even consider my request for an investigation into why there were two different versions of my son’s answer sheets for his Chemistry Regents Examination from June 2007, because he had spoken with Don Conetta, the Principal at New Rochelle High School, and Conetta told him “there was never a second answer sheet generated in the school”. In response, I assured Abrams that there were two versions of the answer sheet and, if necessary, I was prepared to drive to Albany and present them to him in person.
NOTE: I fixed the links to the two docs so you can now compare the “on initials” version with the “two initials” version.
Last night, I received the following reply from David Abrams.
Dear Mr. Cox,
Please do not drive to Albany to present these documents. If you have a second answer sheet and wish for further review from the Office of State Assessment, please have the answer sheet scanned and PDFd. Please e-mail the answer sheet to me. Given that during a Regents Examination, all information is part of the test and does not leave the test room, along with your PDF version of the second answer sheet, please provide a detailed explanation of how you were able to obtain the answer sheet and why you think it is a real answer sheet from the test in question. This explanation needs to be detailed so we can better understand the chain of custody as it pertains to your complaint.
Thank you,
David
David Abrams
Assistant Commissioner
Office for Standards, Assessment & Reporting
NYS Education Department
In response, I sent the following email to David Abrams.
Mr. Abrams,
Per your request, attached is a PDF scan of the “no initials” version of my son’s answer sheet. [here I also include the “two initials” version NYSED has on file for my son; NOTE: the files are 14 MB PDF files and will take a minute to open.]
As for how I came to obtain two different versions of my answer sheet, I received one copy in June 2007 and the other in May 2008 both from Joyce Kent, the Chair of the NRHS Science Department.
In June 2007, Joyce Kent offered to meet with my wife to review Owen’s answers to the June 2007 Chemistry Regents Exam. The meeting was held in anticipation that he would be taking the August 2007 Chemistry Regents Exam; the purpose was to tell my wife what my son had gotten wrong on the test so that he could spend the summer working on his relative areas of weakness in Chemistry. During that meeting Joyce Kent told my wife which questions he got wrong on the multiple choice section. She also gave my wife a copy of the Answer Booklet which includes Part B-2 and Part C, the written portions of the exam. This is the version with 5 blue pages with no initials; what I have taken to calling the “no initials” version. For reasons I have described elsewhere my son did not take the August 2007 Chemistry Regents exam, the answer booklet was filed away.
In May 2008, per the stipulation agreement signed in February 2008, my wife and son met with a chemistry tutor to map out a game plan for how my son would prepare for the Chemistry exam in August 2008. The plan included weekly tutoring sessions, independent study, completing practice exams, and take classes at night at NRHS during the summer session. To get started the tutor wanted to review what Owen had gotten wrong on the June 2007 exam. It had been almost a year and my wife could not recall where she had put the information and Answer Booklet she had gotten from Joyce Kent and was unable to locate it. My wife informed Joyce Kent that she wanted a copy of the test; Joyce Kent agreed that would make a copy of the answer sheet and give it Owen. My son met with Joyce Kent and she gave him a copy of the answer sheet. This appears to be the version the district sent to the State Office of Assessment in June 2008. This version has all white pages and has two initials of the raters on the tally sheet, what I have taken to calling the “two initials” version (there is also a third set of initials “above” the other two).
By way of background, I wish to explain how we first came to notice the problems with the answer sheets. It was in May 2008, that the tutor went through the “two initials” version of the test with my son to review what he had gotten wrong. When they got to question 65, the tutor realized the answer my son had given was correct. At the end of the tutoring session he informed my wife that there was an error on the test and that my son should have been given an 18 on Part C which would change his scaled score. My wife went to the state web site to see what a 53 raw score would convert to and it was in looking at the tally sheet she realized that the raw score total on the answer sheet was also wrong, that the four parts added up to a 62 not a 52 and that with the extra point for question 65 my son actually should have received a 75 on the test not a 67 — that he has PASSED the course (as of 12/7/09 I now know that the state found that Question 78 was marked as correct when it should have been marked wrong but the tutor was only looking at questions marked as incorrect).
For the record, I presented BOTH answer sheets to the school board and the administration of the district in executive session in September 2008. Just as they lied for 16 months about the 8-25-08 letter from Meg Overocker to Don Conetta, they are lying about there being two different versions of the answer sheet. They know full well that there are two versions because (a) they created them; (b) the entire leadership of the district has seen them.
Robert Cox
The “no initials” version
The “two initials” version
For the record, below follows the statement I read to the New Rochelle Board of Education in Executive Session in September 2008 during which time I repeatedly referenced BOTH versions of the answer sheets and displayed them to the board members. The board ask no questions and NEVER responded to any of my requests at the end of my presentation.
As has become a tradition since the “No Child Left Behind Act” was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in 2002, the New York State Department of Education has held a press conference to announce the results on the “New York State Report Card”.
Media outlets from around the State cover the press conference. The Journal News published a story about the recently released New York State Report Cards. Parents across the State logged into the NYSED web site.
A central component of the Report Card is performance on standardized tests. While controversial, districts are evaluated in large measure on student’s performance in these exams. These types of exams are often described as “high stakes tests”. The term is often used to described tests where the outcome of a standardized test is used as the sole determining factor for making a major decision. Common examples of high-stakes testing in the United States include standardized tests administered to measure school progress under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), high school exit exams, and the use of test scores to determine whether or not a school will retain accreditation. In New York State, these exams include the ELA, Math and Regents exams.
The Regents Exams are administered according to strict and specific instructions: printed on the cover of each exam booklet is the date and time when the examination is to begin, and the proctor is required to follow specific regulations for administering the test such as regulations for students leaving the room during the tests, the prohibition of cell phone use by students during a test, and the handling of the test papers. Proctors are required to sign an oath stating that they have followed the regulations, and students also sign an oath stating that they have not received assistance or otherwise cheated on the test. If a student’s cell phone or any other electronical device makes a noise the student’s test will become void, and he/she must retake that regents at a later time.
New York State has strict rules for the handling of the tests.
• The principal of each school requesting examinations is responsible for making the necessary arrangements for safeguarding the materials shipped to the school.
• The principal must certify that the locked Regents box(es) containing the secure examination materials will be stored in a vault or safe that meet rigorous requirements.
• Shortly before the expected delivery date(s), principals should notify all personnel who may be expected to receive examination shipment(s) that they will be delivered within the next few days and instruct them to contact the principal immediately upon receipt of the shipment(s).
• After an examination shipment has been delivered, the locked Regents box(es) must immediately be placed in the vault or safe.
• The Regents box key(s) and the combination or key to the vault or safe must be maintained under strict security conditions to preclude access to the examination materials by students and other unauthorized persons.
• The packages containing secure materials must not to be opened until the day that each examination is to be given. The packages containing each day’s scoring keys must not be opened prior to 10:00 a.m. (9:15 a.m. for August examinations) on the day of the examination.
• If a violation of examination storage procedures is found, all examination materials will immediately be removed from the school and transferred to a location designated by NYSED
New York State has strict rules for the rating of the tests.
• The principal is responsible for establishing rating procedures that will assure reasonable confidence in the accuracy of the scores assigned to the answer papers by individual teachers or by committees of teachers.
• The principal is responsible for the rating of all papers written in the school.
• Responses to the open-ended questions on the English, Global History, Geography examinations must be scored by two teachers. Responses to the open-ended questions on the mathematics A and B Regents examinations must be scored by a committee comprised of a minimum of three mathematics teachers. All student answer papers for the mathematics A Regents examination within the range of scaled scores below passing specified in the rating guide must be scored a second time. If possible, each answer paper for all other State examinations should be rated by two teachers to ensure the accuracy of the scores.
• All answer papers for those examinations with scores from 62 through 68 must be re-rated to ensure the accuracy of the scores.
• In the interest of uniform rating standards, all teachers involved in rating State examinations should be thoroughly familiar with the rating instructions provided by the Department.
• Teachers must use red ink or red pencil when rating any State examination papers.
• When answer papers for State examinations are hand scored by the teachers, the answer papers must not pass from the custody of the teachers and must not be removed from the school building until the rating has been completed and the test scores have been recorded on students’ permanent records.
• Principals must be able to account for the whereabouts of each student’s examination paper during every step of the process.
• The initials of the teacher rating each answer paper must be clearly written on the paper.
New York State has strict post-examination requirements
• The Department does not keep any records of student scores for Regents examinations… therefore, it is most important that the permanent records maintained by the school be complete and accurate.
• Each deputy and proctor must certify, by individually signing a certificate, that the rules and regulations for administering Regents examinations…were faithfully observed.
• After each Regents examination period, the principal must certify, by signing the Examination Storage Certificate, that the procedures for ensuring the security of Regents examinations…were fully and faithfully observed.
Clearly the State takes these exams kind of seriously, right?
Therefore any sort of problem that suggests something improper was done, where these protocols weren’t’ followed, where significant inaccuracies occurred or where students, or proctors or raters did not follow protocol seems like it would be a big deal.
So what to make of this?
I have two different versions of my sons’ June 2007 Chemistry Regents Exam – a “no initials” version” and a “two initials” version
No Initials 65 is marked as 1 point
Two Initials 65 is marked as zeroNo Initials Section C = 17 points when it the score adds up to be 18 points
Two Initials Section C= 17 points which matches the test but is in fact wrong since his answer to 65 was sufficient to get 1 pointNo Initials has no rating initials
Two Initials has two ratings initials (plus a third set of initials below them)No Initials appears to be same handwriting throughout
Two Initials appears to be team handwritingBoth versions have my son’s handwriting, his signature and the required oath.
But most curious of all, both version add 22 and 13 and 10 and 17 and get a score of 52.
That is wrong.
22 and 13 and 10 and 17 equals 62.
A score of 62 should have been re-rated according to the State protocol
In fact, if question 65 is marked as 1 point then he got a 63.
He was given a 67 for the test instead of a 74 or what we believe should have been a 75
This is no small matter.
This test was central to a failed attempt at resolution in June 2007 which resulted in 9 months of an Impartial Hearing which cost my family thousands of dollars and a huge amount of time. It costs the District well over $100,000 to settle the case with an outcome WORSE than I had agreed to accept in June 2007 and in October 2007.
I first brought the problems with this test to Mr. Organisciak who merely passed the buck to Mr. Conetta who passed the buck to Ms. Kent.
In her response she stated that the problem was that there has been an error in converting the raw score to the scaled score.
That was never the problem. In fact, the raw score of 52 was correctly scales to 67. In other words, the District’s official response was entirely non-responsive to the problems I had identified to them.
I sought to address this Board on July 2nd and was quickly shouted down by Mr. Organisciak and Ms Babcock-Deustch and Ms Savalia. I was told I had to request a closed session to discuss this matter even thought I did not to make my point while identifying any district personnel by name.
When I called the next to schedule a closed session Ms Savalia told me I had to be invited by a private attorney. When I pointed out that this is not that I was told at the public board meeting and argued the point she hung up on me.
A second meeting came and went without a word.
When a third meeting came up last week I reminded the District of my desire to address the board and more roadblocks were put in my way.
I am here now because I informed Mr. Organicisak, Ms BabcockDeutsch and your attorneys that I would either address the open session or closed but I was going to speak.
So here I am telling you that there is something seriously wrong with my son’s Chemistry regents exam. It appears to me that his exam was photo copied and altered, protocols were not followed and there are multiple errors in the rating.
In talking to other parents and district employees who spoke to me off the record, my sons’ case is hardly unique. As a matter of course, the District fails to follow the state protocol which brings into question the accuracy of the scores given to NRHS students, what is reporting to the state, the District compliance with State and Federal law, the accuracy of officials transcripts and more. Most regents and honors and AP courses assign 20% of the final grade based on the regents exam. I am personally aware of problems in the Science Department and one other department which I will not name here.
I want there to be an independent investigation into what happened with my son’s test.
I want that investigation to also look into general practice within the District regarding Regents exams and the ratings protocol
I want a change in policy so that every student is given a copy of their regents exam, as they are entitled, after each exam whether they request it or not.
2 Answer sheets and a pack of lies revisited!
Well let’s see how they can sweep this under the rug.
There obviously was a serious breach of Regents protocols. Now let’s find out if anybody cares.
Is CYA more important than ethics? Are students more important than teachers? Are students more important than administrators? Who is serving whom? Are the parents and students serving the teachers and the administrators or is it the other way around? So far it looks like the teachers and administrators come first and the students and parents are dead last.