Judges: D. R. ALEXANDER
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Latest Update: May 23, 1988
Summary: Applicant for licensure by exam as landscape architect not entitled to a passing grade
88-1779.PDFSTATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
KARL T. CHRISTIANSEN, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 88-1779
) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF )
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the above matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Donald R. Alexander, on May 11, 1988, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Karl T. Christiansen, pro se
142 Elmwood, #25 Evanston, Illinois 60202
For Respondent: Carol M. Anderson, Esquire
Croissant Place
1313 South Andrews Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 BACKGROUND
This matter arose on October 23, 1987, when respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Landscape Architecture, issued a written notice advising petitioner, Karl T. Christiansen, that he had failed to pass the design implementation section of the Landscape Architecture Examination given in June, 1987. By letter dated March 15, 1988, petitioner requested a hearing to contest his examination score. On April 13, 1988, the agency forwarded the request to the Division of Administrative Hearings. By notice of hearing dated April 29, 1988, a final hearing was scheduled on May 12, 1988, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 1/ Upon the hearing officer's own motion, the final hearing was rescheduled to May 11, 1988, at the same location.
At final hearing, petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Charles Love, a landscape architect. Respondent presented the testimony of Juan Trujillo, a DPR examination specialist, and Michael Oliver, a landscape architect and Board consultant. The parties stipulated into evidence joint exhibit 1 which includes the examination, Evaluation Guide, test results and the objections raised by petitioner.
There is no transcript of hearing. Neither party filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The issue is whether petitioner should have received a passing grade on the design implementation portion of the June, 1987 landscape architecture examination.
Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:
FINDINGS OF FACT
In June 1987, petitioner, Karl T. Christiansen, was an examinee on Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Uniform National Examination for landscape architects. He had previously passed Sections 1 and 2 in the June, 1986 examination. The test is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation, and licensure is granted by respondent, Board of Landscape Architects.
The examination in question is a uniform multi-state examination adopted for use in Florida. The questions are prepared by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards. The same organization also prepares a comprehensive Evaluation Guide for use by graders in scoring the test. All Florida graders must be professional landscape architects with at least five years' experience. In addition, they are given training by the Office of Examination Services before grading the examination. After the examination was completed by the candidates, all examinations, including that of Christiansen, were blind-graded by the graders using the Evaluation Guide as a tool.
By notice dated October 23, 1987, petitioner was advised by the Office of Examination Services that he had received the following scores on Sections 3,
4 and 5 of the examination:
Design Application | 84.4 | PASS |
Design Implementation | 70.8 | FAIL |
Florida Section | 76.2 | PASS |
On December 14, 1987, petitioner was given an opportunity to meet with Board representatives in Tallahassee and present objections concerning his score on Section 4 of the examination. Because of Christiansen's concerns, the Board regraded his examination a second time and raised his overall score from 70.8 to
72.4. This was still short of the 74.5 needed for passing. After being given the results of the second grading, petitioner requested a formal hearing.
At hearing petitioner lodged objections to scores received on twenty- one questions in Subparts A, B and C of Section 4 of the examination. These objections are contained in joint composite exhibit 1 received in evidence. It was Christiansen's position that the graders had used subjective standards in evaluating his solutions, and that they had failed to take a sufficient amount of time to evaluate his answers. In addition, Christiansen contended that the examiners had failed to note a number of correct answers for which he was not given credit. Other than his own testimony, petitioner did not present any other evidence to support his contentions. Indeed, his own witness, a Fort Lauderdale landscape architect with thirty years experience, concluded that the Board was correct in failing Christiansen and that Christiansen had not demonstrated adequate competence on the examination to justify a passing grade.
In support of its position, respondent presented an expert, Michael Oliver, a longtime registered landscape architect with three years experience in grading this type of examination. In preparation for the hearing, Oliver reviewed the examination, instruction booklet and grader's Evaluation Guide. He then regraded petitioner's examination and assigned it a score of 73.4, which was a failing grade. In doing so, Oliver assigned higher scores than did the previous two graders to certain questions but lower scores to others, for an overall average of 73.4. Through a detailed analysis, Oliver pointed out the infirmities in each of Christiansen's objections and why an overall failing grade was appropriate. It was demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that, where petitioner had not received the desired grade, he had misinterpreted the instructions, prepared unsafe designs, failed to satisfy all criteria, or gave incorrect answers. Therefore, petitioner's grade should not be changed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties thereto pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1987).
As the unsuccessful candidate on a professional licensure examination, Christiansen bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that the agency was arbitrary or capricious in grading his examination, or that it failed to conduct the examination fairly, uniformly and in accordance with its own rules and regulations, State ex rel Topp v. Board of Electrical Examiners, 101 So.2d 583, 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958), or that the examination instructions were insufficient and misleading, Alvarez v. Department of Professional Regulation, 458 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Petitioner has failed to satisfy the foregoing burden. Indeed, the far greater weight of evidence establishes that the test was fairly drawn and administered in accordance with the Board's rules and regulations, was graded in an impartial manner and contained clear and concise instructions. This being so, it is concluded that petitioner's grade should not be changed.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board denying petitioner's
request to receive a passing grade on section 4 of the June, 1987 landscape architecture examination.
DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
DONALD R. ALEXANDER
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1988.
ENDNOTE
1/ An expedited hearing was held in this matter because petitioner intends to leave the State of Florida during the latter part of May, 1988.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Karl T. Christiansen
142 Elmwood, #25 Evanston, Illinois 60202
Carol M. Anderson, Esquire Croissant Place
1313 South Andrews Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
Pat Ard, Executive Director Board of Landscape Architects
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Docket for Case No: 88-001779
Orders for Case No: 88-001779
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
May 23, 1988 |
Recommended Order
|
Applicant for licensure by exam as landscape architect not entitled to a passing grade
|
