T. "PETE" KNOWLES, III, )
vs. ) CASE NO. 77-1850
Respondent. )
This case was heard pursuant to notice in the Board Room of the Administration Building, Seminole Community College, Sanford, Florida, at 10:00 a.m., on January 10, 1978, by Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
This matter was presented upon the petition of C. T. "Pete" Knowles, III, to the Board of Trustees of Seminole Community College requesting that a determination be made whether the grade assigned to the Petitioner by Mr.
Leonard Zilles should be changed from a "F", or a failing grade, to a "C", or a passing grade. This case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Trustees of Seminole College and is heard pursuant to their letter of request and the provisions of Chapter 120.
As Petitioner, Knowles, carried the burden of proof and presented evidence that his instructor, Mr. Zilles, had given him a "F" in Western Civilization, HY102, because Knowles had allegedly failed to complete the requirements of the course. The question upon which alteration of the grade is based is whether taking all examinations was a requirement of successfully completing the course.
For Petitioner: C. T. "Pete" Knowles, III
For Respondent: O. H. Eaton, Esquire
C. T. "Pete" Knowles, III, was ,a student in Western Civilization, HY102, at Seminole Community College. This course was instructed by Leonard Zilles.
Zilles established a grading format for HY102 which was announced orally to the class. The establishment of this system and its oral publication
to the students was within his discretion under the college's policy handbook, although instructors are encouraged to publish course requirements in writing.
The course, HY102, was an eight (8) week summer course presented in four, two week segments. There were four noncumulative examinations, one after each two week segment. Each examination consisted of two parts, a multiple choice portion and an essay portion. A total of six course points could be earned on each examination, two points maximum for the multiple choice portion and four points for the essay portion. One course point was earned for obtaining a numerical score between sixty and eighty-three on the multiple choice portion, or the equivalent of a letter grade of "D". Two points were earned for a numerical score of eighty-four points or higher on the multiple choice portion of the examination, or the equivalent grade of "C". No student could earn more than two points, or a "C", on the multiple choice portion of the examination. Letter grades were assigned to the essay portion of the examinations and three course points were earned for a "B" and four course points for an "A". No credit was received by the student on the essay portion of the examination for performance determined by the instructor to be below a grade of "B". A student who received less than a numerical grade of sixty on the multiple choice portion of the examination could still be awarded points for his performance on the essay portion. Final grades for the course were determined upon the accumulation of course points by a student. For the accumulation of four points a student received a grade of "D" in the course, for eight points a grade of "C," for sixteen points a grade of "B," and for twenty points a grade of "A." Attendance in the course was not mandatory and no statement was made regarding whether examinations were mandatory.
Paul Jenkins, the only student in this course who made an "A," stated that a discussion was held during a class break immediately preceding the fourth examination in the course concerning whether students could skip the last examination and based their final grade upon the number of course points they had accumulated. This question was not raised in class and the matter clarified. There is no indication that Knowles was a party to this discussion; however, both Knowles and Frederick Norris testified that Zilles never stated that taking all examinations was a course requirement.
Knowles arranged with his Health instructor, John Panatallis, to take his final examination in Health early so that Knowles could begin his vacation with his family. Panatallis inquired of Knowles when he came to take the Health examination how Knowles stood in Zilles' class, and Knowles advised Panatallis that he had enough points to ensure a "C." Pantallis stated that he did not require attendance at examinations but averaged a zero for a missed examination in his grading system.
Knowles was aware that he had accumulated eight points on the basis of a discussion with Zilles one week before the fourth examination, at which time Zilles told Knowles that he had made a "B" on the essay portion of the third examination giving Knowles a total of eight points for the course.
Knowles did not take the fourth examination because he did not believe that the examination was mandatory and in accordance with the professor's grading process, Knowles could not improve his course grade even if he earned a maximum of six course points.
Zilles gave Knowles an "F" based upon Knowles' failure, in Zilles' opinion, to complete the course by taking the fourth examination.
The director of academic affairs, Dr. Anita Harrow, stated that the college's handbook required that instructors be responsible for identifying course objectives and for making grading procedures clear to students. Instructors were urged, but not required, to present course objectives and grading procedures to the students in writing. In accordance with the college's policy, instructors were free to choose from any recognized standard of evaluation in grading the performance of their students, and attendance at examinations was not a uniform requirement for course completion.
In response to a hypothetical question based upon the facts presented regarding the grading procedures and the information presented to the students in HY102 by Mr. Zilles, Dr. Harrow stated that in her opinion she would deem the course grade to be based upon the points accumulated by the students without regard to completion of all the examinations in the course.
Mr. Zilles' grade sheet for the course, HY102, was introduced as Exhibit 1. Examination of this exhibit reveals that of the eleven students who finished the course and took the fourth examination, only four students received grades in accordance with the grading format which Zilles had announced. Grades of "B" were reported for Laplant and McDonald who had accumulated only eleven points. Rios accumulated a total of ten points, four of which were earned on the fourth examination, but received a grade of "D." Only two students, Bland and Laplant who could not improve their grades by taking the fourth examination took it. Lastly and most importantly, Pagan, who received no credit for the final examination, received a grade of "D" in the course based upon his accumulation of five course points for his previous work. Analysis of Exhibit 1 shows no consistency in the assignment of grades based upon the stated criteria.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This case was heard pursuant to the request of the Trustees of the Seminole Community College to whom Knowles had petitioned for review and change of the grade given him by Mr. Zilles. The hearing was conducted pursuant to the authority of Section 120.57. The parties were Seminole Community College and C.
T. "Pete" Knowles.
As petitioner, Knowles has the burden of proof to show by the introduction of substantial and competent evidence that completion of the four examinations in HY102 was not a requirement for successful completion of the course. The testimony of Norris, who was called by the College as a witness in the proceeding, supported the testimony of Knowles that Zilles did not state that completion of the four examinations was a course requirement. The testimony of Jenkins, who was also called as a witness by the College, shows that as late as the week before the fourth examination a question existed in the minds of other students in the course whether the fourth examination was mandatory. Only two students who, in accordance with the grading schedule announced by Zilles could not improve their final grades, took the final examination. Knowles response to Mr. Panatallis' question regarding his standing in HY102 indicates that Knowles believed that he did not have to take the examination, that his grade was dependent upon the accumulation of course points, and that Knowles made appropriate arrangements to take at least one of his other examinations. The grade received by Pagan clearly indicates that the successful passage of the fourth examination was not required to pass the course.
Dr. Harrow, director of academic affairs, was of the opinion based upon the data given the students by Mr. Zilles that taking the four examinations
