Judges: JAMES E. BRADWELL
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Latest Update: Jun. 30, 1988
Summary: The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner successfully completed the answers posed on the April, 1987 professional engineer's examination.Whether petitioner successfully answered questions posed on his professional engineer's exam.
87-4993STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CLARK W. BRIDGMAN, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 87-4993
)
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ) ENGINEERS, )
)
Respondents. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a public hearing in this case on April 11, 1988 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Thereafter, the parties were granted leave to submit post-hearing memoranda supportive of their respective positions. Respondent had submitted a Proposed Recommended Order which was considered by me in preparation of this Recommended Order. Proposed findings which are not incorporated herein are the subject of specific rulings in an Appendix attached hereto.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Glen E. Wichinsky, Esquire
900 Glades Road, 5th Floor Boca Raton, Florida 33431
For Respondent: Michael A. Mone', Esquire
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner successfully completed the answers posed on the April, 1987 professional engineer's examination.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Petitioner took the April, 1987 professional engineering examination. By uniform grade notice dated July 22, 1987, he was noticed that he failed to pass the principles and practice portion of the examination. On October 9, 1987, Petitioner requested a formal hearing regarding disputed issues of fact.
Petitioner presented two witnesses, himself and Mr. Dunkelburger.
Respondent presented one expert witness, Dr. Joseph A. Caliendo. Petitioner offered into evidence three exhibits which were received.
Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant facts:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner took the April, 1987 professional engineering examination and was advised that he failed the principles and practice portion of the examine. His raw score was 45 points and the parties stipulated that he needed a minimum raw score of 48 points to pass the examination. In his request for hearing, Petitioner challenged questions 120, 123 and 420. However, during the hearing, he only presented testimony and challenged question 420.
Question 420 is worth 10 points and is set forth in its entirety in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1. For reasons of test security, the exhibit has been sealed. Question 420 requires the examinee to explore the area regarding "braced excavations" and explores the principles involved in such excavations.
Question 420 requires the examinee to calculate the safety factor for a braced excavation including the depth of excavation which would cause failure by "bottom heaving".
Petitioner, in calculating the safety factor, made a mathematical error when he incorporated the B-prime value calculation which was inserted into the equation in making his calculations.
Question 420 does not direct the applicant to apply the calculations to either a square excavation or to a rectangular excavation.
Petitioner assumed the shape of the excavation to be square and calculated the factor of safety according to that assumption.
In assuming the square excavation, Petitioner did not make the more conservative calculation that will be required in making the safety factor calculation for a rectangular excavation. In this regard, an examination of Petitioner's work sheet indicates that he referenced the correct calculation on his work sheet but the calculation was not transferred to or utilized in the equation.
Respondent utilizes the standard scoring plan outline, which is more commonly known as the Items Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) which is used by the scorers in grading the exam. The ISSP provides a scoring breakdown for each question so that certain uniform criteria are met by all applicants. For example, four points are given for a correct solution on a specific question regardless of the scorer. This criteria is supplied by the person or persons who prepared the exam. The criteria indicates "in problem-specific terms, the types of deficiencies that would lead to scoring at each of the eleven (0-10) points on the scale".
The ISSP awards six points on question 420 when the applicants meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied, applicant demonstrate minimally adequate knowledge in all relevant aspect of the item." ISSP awards seven points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, obtains solution, but chooses less than optimum approach. Solution is awkward but reasonable".
The ISSP awards eight points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied. Errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct".
The ISSP awards nine points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, correct solution but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc."
The ISSP criteria for awarding nine points as to question 420 clearly requires that the Petitioner calculate the correct solution without mathematical errors. The Petitioner's answer was not correct regardless of the assumption as to the shape of the excavation since he made a mathematical error.
The ISSP criteria for awarding eight points as to question 420 allows Petitioner to calculate the answer with mathematical errors with the requirements that the results are reasonable. Petitioner made a mathematical error although his result was reasonable. His answer fits the criteria for the award of eight points in conformity with the ISSP criteria.
Petitioner received six points for his answer to question 420 whereas he is entitled to an award of eight points.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Respondent is charged with the responsibility of licensing duly qualified persons seeking to practice engineering in Florida. Passing an examination is a prerequisite generally to obtaining a license. Section 471.015, Florida Statutes. Respondent is required to administer the licensing examination. Section 471.013, Florida Statutes.
The examination must "adequately and reliably measure an applicant's ability to practice the profession." Section 455. 217(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The examination here adequately measures an applicant's competency within the purview of Section 471.042(1), Florida Statutes.
Petitioner has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent incorrectly assigned him a failing grade. Florida Department of Transportation v. J. W. C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla 1st DCA 1981).
Competent and substantial evidence was offered herein to establish that when Petitioner is allotted an additional two points for question 420, he receives a raw score of 47 which is one point short of the required raw score of
48 necessary for successfully passing the professional engineering examination administered him in April, 1987.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that:
Respondent enter a Final Order determining that Petitioner failed the principles and practice portion of the April, 1987 engineering examination.
RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida.
JAMES E. BRADWELL
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 30th day of June, 1988.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Glen E. Wichinsky, Esquire 900 Glades Road, 5th Floor Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional
Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Docket for Case No: 87-004993
Orders for Case No: 87-004993
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
Jun. 30, 1988 |
Recommended Order
|
Whether petitioner successfully answered questions posed on his professional engineer's exam.
|
