STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CHRISTINE DIANE ZARLI, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 81-2941

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This cause came on for final hearing before the undersigned Hearing Officer on March 30, 1982, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Alice M. Reiter, Esquire

1394 North University Drive Plantation, Florida 33322

For Respondent: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Division of Administrative Law 1601 The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Petitioner in this cause has challenged the failing grade she received on Part (a) of the professional examination given for the licensing of architects by the Board of Architecture of the State of Florida.

Having considered all testimony, evidence and argument, the Hearing Officer enters the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Certain stipulations of fact were entered into by Petitioner and Respondent and accepted by the Hearing Officer. Those stipulations of fact are set forth below as Findings of Fact in this cause:

   
   

   1. "Petitioner, CHRISTINE DIANE ZARLI, [McDonough] is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida is of two (2) parts, one of which is the written examination given in December of each year and the other of which is a site and design (sic) [Part (a)] which is given in June of each year. Petitioner has met all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination."

   2. "Petitioner took the design and site plan portion of the National Architecture Examination in June, 1981. This portion of the examination consist (sic) of a twelve (42) hour sketch problem involving design and site considerations. The examination is administered by the office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation, and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as to all of the jurisdictions of the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination itself as noted above involves the design of a structure by an applicant including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades and floor plans."

      
      

   3. "Information supplied to the applicant includes a preexamination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself (sic) in order to receive a passing grade. At the time of the examination itself, other information is supplied to the applicant to enable him (sic) to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. In general, the purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted to him (sic) by NCARB. This portion of the examination, therefore, allows the national testing service grading the examination and through them the Florida Board of Architecture to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, asthetic, energy and legal requirements which are tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December of each year."

      
      

   4. "The grading of the site and design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three (3) architects selected by the various architectural boards of some twenty (20) states who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis. That is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin (sic) of the solution which he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration various criteria as set forth in Rule 21B-14.03, F.A.C. Graders are instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then are to determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicants (sic) submission, whether or not a passing grade of three (.3) or four (4) as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, F.A.C. (sic) [has been achieved]. In order for an applicant to pass he must receive at least two (2) passing grades from the three

      (3) architects who independently grade the applicant's submission. [That is, at least two of the three graders must have scored the applicant with a passing score.]"

      
      

2. The architects chosen as graders by the NCARB for the design and site plan portion of the examination are required to participate in an extensive exercise designed to achieve uniformity in grading by all graders. The graders are instructed to review the solutions of the applicants quickly for an overall impression. They are further directed to score the solution on the basis of that first impression. They are specifically asked not to regrade solutions or to analyze specific points of presentation. The graders are instructed that the grading concept is a holistic concept and that the basic assumption of that holistic grading concept is that each of the factors involved in design skills is related to all the other factors and that no one factor can be separated from

   the others. The graders are instructed that they must judge each solution as a whole grading the solution for their impression of its totality. They are told that an examinee is entitled to make some mistakes, recognizing that the problem is hurriedly executed in a tense situation, without recourse to normal office reference materials and without the customary time for deliberation and critique by others.

   
   

3. The graders are directed to give each solution a holistic score of 1, 2, 3, or 4. 1 is Very Poor (failed), 2 is Poor (failed), 3 is Minimally Acceptable (pass), and 4 is Good (pass).

   
   

4. No evidence has been presented in this proceeding from which it can be concluded that the instructions to the graders and the rules for the administration of this test were not followed. Thus, it is found that the three graders who graded Petitioner's solution did not know Petitioner's identity nor her state of origin and did not know, at the time they graded her solution, the grade placed on that solution by their fellow graders. Each of the three graders independently assigned a score of 2, or Poor and failing, to Petitioner's solution.

   
   

5. Although testimony was presented with regard to the strengths and weaknesses of certain specific elements of Petitioner's solution, no evidence was presented from which it can be found as a matter of fact that the solution, when considered holistically, was deserving of a grade higher than that assessed by the three independent graders.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

6. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this proceeding.

   
   

7. Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, regulates the practice of architecture in the State of Florida and requires examination of applicants for licensure. The examination taken by the Petitioner in this cause is that examination required by Chapter 481, Florida Statutes.

   
   

8. The Petitioner has failed to show that an error was made in the determination of her grade, that the examination was improperly administered, or that her examination was graded differently than were the examinations of other persons. Since the examination is designed to be graded holistically, it is not sufficient to show that an improper grade has been assessed by showing that specific elements of the proposed solution were satisfactory. It must be shown that the solution as a whole was deserving of a grade higher than that assessed.

   
   

9. In this cause, the evidence establishes that three independent graders, without knowledge of the identity of the applicant or the grade assessed by one another, scored applicant with the identical grade of 2, which is a failing grade. No evidence has been presented in this cause from which it can be concluded as a matter of law that the holistic grades assigned by the three independent graders were erroneous.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED:

That the Petitioner failed to achieve a passing score on the design and site plan portion of the National Architecture Examination taken by Petitioner in June, 1981.

ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Director

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1983.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Alice M. Reiter, Esquire 1394 North University Drive Plantation, Florida 33322

John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Division of Administrative Law Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director Board of Architecture

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Honorable Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary, Department of

Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 81-002941

Orders for Case No: 81-002941