STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DANIEL T. CANAVAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 83-103

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, BOARD OF )

ARCHITECTURE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case was heard pursuant to notice on March 2, 1983, in West Palm Beach, Florida, by Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. This case arose when the Petitioner received notification that he had received a failing grade on the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination on the standardized test developed and administered by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). After the Petitioner was notified of his failure and of his right to a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner requested a formal hearing.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Daniel T. Canavan, pro se

814 Avenida Hermosa

West Palm Beach, Florida 33405

For Respondent: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire

Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

ISSUE

The sole issue in this cause is whether the Petitioner should have received a passing grade on the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination, which he took in June, 1982.

Both parties submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner, Daniel T. Canavan, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in Florida. The architectural examination in Florida is administered in two parts: a written examination given in December of each year, and the design and site planning examination given in June of each year. Canavan met all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination.

   
   

2. Canavan took the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination in June, 1982. This examination consisted of various design and site problems to be resolved in drawings to be completed within 12 hours. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation. The examination is prepared and supplied to the Office of Examination Services by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The design and site planning portion of the examination for June of 1982 required the design of a small airport terminal by the applicant to include drawings of the structure on the site, exterior elevations, interior floor plans and cross-sections of the building interior.

   
   

3. Canavan, together with the other applicants, was supplied information and a preexamination booklet setting forth generally the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements which the applicants would be expected to sketch. At the time of the examination, other information was supplied to the applicants to enable them to more adequately design the structure requested and meet the necessary architectural requirements.

   
   

4. The examination of the Petitioner, together with the examinations of the applicants from some 20 states using the NCARB standardized examination, were graded at one time by graders of the NCARB. Each state participating in the examination process provides at least two qualified architects to function as graders. These graders are given specific training by NCARB to standardize their grading approach to the examination. The examinations of all the applicants are divided among the various graders on a blind grading basis in such a manner that the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose examination he is grading. Graders look at the applicant's overall plan to determine whether the applicant has met or failed to meet the requirements. The grader makes notations of specific areas of weakness based upon the grading criteria and based upon the overall conception of the applicant's submission. Each examination is graded by a minimum of two graders, who grade the examination independently. If the examination receives a failing grade from each of the independent graders, it is graded by a third grader.

   
   

5. The Petitioner's examination was graded in accordance with the above process and received a failing grade, indicating that it was graded by three independent graders. The Petitioner was notified of his failure to pass the examination and given notice of his right to a formal hearing.

   
   

6. Jeff Hoxie, who was one of the graders on the June 1982 examination and who is an experienced architect licensed in the State of Florida, reviewed the Petitioner's examination in the manner that it would have been assessed by the graders, explaining the process generally and explaining the specific deficiencies which he noted. He used the original grader's comments regarding the deficiencies noted as a point of departure to explain his assessment of the Petitioner's examination.

7. The Petitioner failed to follow specific examination requirements as to the required sizes of specific floor areas, failed to follow building code requirements in his design of the kitchen and restaurant, and failed to properly draw the sketch required of the structural and mechanical elements of the building. While there were other areas of weakness noted, Mr. Hoxie stated that the major failures listed above would justify a failing grade.

   
   

8. Petitioner's testimony revealed that he had made a mistake in sketching one plan, and that, because of this mistake and the corrections which Petitioner made, he ran out of time, which resulted in the specific failings noted by the three graders at the national level and confirmed by Mr. Hoxie.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

9. The Board of Architecture of the State of Florida is charged by Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, to regulate the profession of architecture in the State, to include the determination of the qualifications of applicants for licensure by examination. The Division of Administrative Hearings is authorized to enter this Recommended Order pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.

   
   

10. Section 481.213, Florida Statutes, provides that the Department shall license any applicant whom the Board certifies as qualified for licensure. The Board shall certify for licensure any applicant who satisfies the requirements of Sections 481.209 and 481.211, Florida Statutes. Section 481.209, supra, provides that an applicant shall be entitled to take the licensure examination to practice in the State as a registered architect if the applicant is honest and trustworthy and is a graduate of an approved five-year architectural curriculum. Section 455.217 (2), Florida Statutes, gives an applicant the right to a grade review and to a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, if an applicant fails part of an examination.

    
    

11. Although it is not raised as an issue, no evidence was received that would indicate that the examination in question was unfairly administered or graded. The Petitioner failed to show that an error was made in the determination of his grade. The evidence established that the Petitioner failed to supply specific elements required by the instructions which were given to him prior to the examination. These failures by the Petitioner are the reason he failed to pass the design and site planning portion of the architectural examination. Petitioner failed to meet his burden to show that an error in grading of his examination occurred, or that the examination was unfairly administered or graded. Wherefore, the action of the Board in failing the Petitioner's design and site planning portion of its examination should be affirmed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board of Architecture of the State of Florida fail the Petitioner, Daniel T. Canavan, on the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination taken by Canavan in June, 1982.

DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 11th day of April, 1983.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Mr. Daniel T. Canavan 814 Avenida Hermosa

West Palm Beach, Florida 33405

John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Herbert Coons, Executive Director Board of Architecture

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 83-000103

Orders for Case No: 83-000103