Judges: ARNOLD H. POLLOCK
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 1990
Summary: Applicant for license as architect failed to show his exam score was improper so as to achieve passing score.
82-3201.PDFSTATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
WILLIAM EVERETT WARRINER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 82-3201
)
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, this cause was heard by Arnold H. Pollock, the assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on January 12, 1983, in Gainesville, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: William Everett Warriner, pro se
305 North East Fifth Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601
For Respondent: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire
Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Petitioner, William Everett Warriner, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The Petitioner took the Design and Site Plan portion of the National Architectural Examination duly adopted in Florida in June, 1982, and failed to achieve a passing grade.
He thereafter requested a formal hearing to determine the propriety of the grade he received on that examination. Accordingly, the issue for determination is whether Petitioner successfully completed the June 1982 architecture examination. The other part of the architecture examination, the written examination, administered at another time, is not at issue in this proceeding.
Petitioner testified on his own behalf. Respondent presented the testimony of Mr. Robert Burke. Additionally, Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 3 were admitted into evidence without objection.
Neither party indicated its intent to submit post-hearing findings of fact, upon questioning by the Hearing Officer.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner, William Everett Warriner, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture
examination in the State of Florida consists of two parts, one of which is a written examination given in December of each year, and the other of which is a Site Planning and Design Test given in June of each year. Petitioner meets all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination.
Petitioner took the Site Planning and Design Test portion of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) in June, 1982. This portion of the examination is a twelve-hour sketch problem involving design and site consideration in which the applicant is graded on his or her design solution to the program requirements furnished, which are identical for each candidate at a given examination, on the basis or certain stated criteria, by trained graders who are registered architects. The examination is administered by 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 NCARB. The examination involves the design of a structure, in this case a small municipal airport terminal building, by an applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, facades, floor plans, and other aspects.
The applicant is supplied with a preexamination booklet which sets forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. At the time of the actual examination, the applicant is furnished other information to enable him to more adequately design the facility and demonstrate his command of the architectural requirements.
In general, the examination was designed to require the applicant to design a solution to the site plan and the building design problems submitted to him by NCARB. The pertinent portion of the examination allows the examination graders to determine whether an applicant is able to coordinate the various structural design, technical aesthetic, energy, and legal requirements in order to resolve the design and site plan problem.
The grading of the Site Planning and Design Test is accomplished by the review of the candidate's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of several states, who are given training by NCARB in an effort to, as much as is possible, standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each reviewer then assesses the product submitted by candidates/examinees on a "blind grading" basis, that is without knowledge of the identity or geographical origin of the submitter, or of the grade assigned the product by other reviewers/graders. The graders assess the product with a view toward identifying areas of strength or weakness within an overall determination of satisfaction and assign a holistic numerical score ranging from "0" (fail) to "4" (pass). Grades "1" (incomplete) and "2" (poor) are failing grades, and grades "3" (minimally acceptable) and "4" (good) are passing grades. If grades "1" or "2" are awarded, the graders are required to indicate the examinee's weakness, but these indications of weakness must not be arbitrary. All solutions are graded by three examiners, except those solutions to which a "0" has been given by one examiner. Solutions which are not clearly passing or failing are graded by a fourth examiner. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive passing grades from at least two examiners, who independently grade his solution to the problem. A passing grade, as was stated above, is defined as a holistic grade of "3" or "4" as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code.
Petitioner received a grade of "2", which is a failing grade, from each of the three graders who graded his examination.
Though the Petitioner demonstrated an effort to comply with the criteria set forth in the examination and indicated in each area identified as weak on the examination grade report wherein he felt he had achieved the desired goal and standard, Mr. Burke, a registered architect and a member of the Florida Board of Architecture, identified several material areas wherein the Petitioner failed to observe program requirements. In the Site Planning and Site Design area, Petitioner has not shown any details as to how handicapped individuals would get across the median in the parking area in that there is no showing of a ramp from the pavement over the curb and across the median, nor is there any showing of lighting over the curbs for the handicapped. Further, on the issue of service area location, as drawn by Petitioner, this layout would require all service vehicles to pass in front of the airport through passenger traffic to get to the service cut for the service drive, which, in itself, is located too close to the baggage handling area. In addition, the site aesthetics were deficient in completeness and clarity in that landscaping was not shown, nor was appropriate consideration given to water flow and drainage.
Additional deficiencies were demonstrated in the areas of building planning and design. The functional relationships of programmed areas were basically accomplished, but major problems exist in the general lobby area. While the test problem calls for the display area to be in the general lobby area, in Petitioner's solution, they are away from the ticket area and somewhat hidden. Those facilities which need exposure do not get it. Pedestrian circulation between the baggage claim area and the lobby exits is obstructed by the location of the car rental booths. In addition, traveling from the deplaning area on the second floor to the baggage claim area on the ground floor is made too difficult. The solution's conformity to barrier-free requirements is weak. There is little or insufficient protection from the elements at the entrances and exits. The solution's requirement for 74-foot trusses in the terminal creates excessive wasted volume in the attic area, and the overall form is awkward. In addition, one page of the problem is not completed, and emergency exits are not shown as required.
In the section involving technical aspects of the plan, the first two sub-areas were marked weak primarily because of the incompleteness of the technical plan for the foundation. Further, only a very few technical notes appear on the solution, providing insufficient information, and the use of wood for a public building is dangerous.
Petitioner disagrees with his grade and presented evidence to show that his failure was a marginal one. He feels he has rebutted approximately 75 percent of the failing items and passed the written part of the examination (Part B) on the first attempt. He has been involved in residential design for twelve years and has considerable experience. He feels the comment on the handicap ramps is valid, but that is only one part of the problem. There is sufficient other provision made for the handicapped in his solution. The lobby displays would have the least likelihood of being seen if placed in the ticket area as suggested. He opines that the covered walkways over the two major entrances are sufficient, and it would be superfluous to have covers over every door.
Repeated rebuttal, such as those items listed, display Petitioner's difference of opinion with the grade assigned his problem, but not that his examination was graded in an arbitrary or capricious way or in a manner
different than that utilized in grading the examination of every candidate taking the same examination throughout the United States. Also, his excuse for incompleteness that he only had twelve hours in which to complete the problem is invalid. The same time was allotted all candidates, including those who passed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, regulates the practice of architecture in the State of Florida and includes within the requirements for licensure the passage of an examination.
The thrust of the Petitioner's position is that he disagrees with the grade assigned to his solution to the problem which constitutes Section A of the June 1982 architecture examination. Though his testimony tends to refute each allegation made by the examination graders, it is obvious that there is a difference of opinion between the Petitioner and the graders as to the quality of the Petitioner's solution and absent a showing of error or arbitrariness and capriciousness on the part of the graders, the opinion of the three graders should prevail. Here, Petitioner has presented no evidence to show that the grade he received on the examination was in error or was in any way arbitrary or capricious.
This Petitioner has failed to carry the burden necessary to show that an error was made in the determination of his grade, that the examination was improperly administered, or that his examination was graded differently than were the examinations of other persons. On the other hand, the Respondent has shown that the examination is national in scope; that the examination is graded by architects who are given special training and preparation in the grading of this examination; that all precautions possible are taken to ensure the integrity of the examination and the examination process, including anonymity of the examinee; that to achieve a passing grade the candidate must garner passing grades from two out of three graders of his examination; and that all three graders who examined Petitioner's solution assigned him a failing grade.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore,
RECOMMENDED:
That a final order be entered finding that Petitioner has failed to achieve a passing score on the June 1982 architecture examination and upholding the grade awarded to Petitioner on that examination.
RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer 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 3rd day of January, 1983.
COPIES FURNISHED:
John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Mr. William Everett Warriner
305 North East Fifth Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601
Mr. Herbert Coons, Jr. Executive Director Board of Architecture
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Mr. Fred Roche Secretary
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Docket for Case No: 82-003201
Orders for Case No: 82-003201
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
Mar. 22, 1983 |
Agency Final Order
|
|
|
Jan. 31, 1983 |
Recommended Order
|
Applicant for license as architect failed to show his exam score was improper so as to achieve passing score.
|
