vs. ) CASE NO. 88-0180
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, the above matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Donald R. Alexander, on August 9, 1988, in Orlando, Florida.
For Petitioner: Joseph R. Foster, Esquire
For Respondent: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire
This matter arose on October 9, 1987, when respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture, issued a written notice advising petitioner, J. Frank Smith, that he failed the building design portion of the professional architecture examination given in June, 1987. By letter dated December 2, 1987, petitioner requested a hearing to contest his examination score. The letter cited no specific allegations as to how the agency erred. On January 8, 1988, the agency forwarded the request to the Division of Administrative Hearings. By notice of hearing dated January 21, 1988, a final hearing was scheduled on April 19, 1988 in Orlando, Florida. Upon request of the parties, the final hearing was rescheduled to August 9, 1988 at the same location.
At final hearing petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Arnold F. Butt, a registered architect and DPR consultant.
Respondent also presented the testimony of witness Butt and offered into evidence respondent's exhibit 1. The parties stipulated into evidence joint exhibits 1-9. These included the examination grading criteria and booklet, petitioner's test results and the solutions to the same examination prepared by five other candidates.
The transcript of hearing was filed on August 26, 1988. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by petitioner and respondent on September 14 and 15, 1988, respectively. A ruling on each proposed finding is made in the Appendix of this Recommended Order.
The issue is whether petitioner should have received a passing grade on the building design portion of the June, 1987 professional architectural examination.
In June, 1987, petitioner, J. Frank Smith, was an examinee on Division
(C) of the professional architectural examination. Successful completion of the examination is a prerequisite to the issuance of a license as an architect by respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture (Board or Department). Petitioner had previously received passing grades on all other parts of the examination.
By notice dated October 9, 1987, petitioner was advised by the Department's Office of Examination Services that he had received a "Fail" score on Division (C). After participating in an informal grade review session concerning his examination score, 1/ Smith requested a formal hearing by letter dated December 2, 1987. Although the letter did not identify any alleged errors in the manner in which the examination was graded, Smith's concerns were brought out during final hearing.
Division (C) is a twelve hour sketch problem involving building design considerations. On the examination in question, the candidates were required to design a downtown athletic club including a site and first floor plan, a second floor plan, elevations and building section. To receive a passing score, the candidate had to prepare "minimally acceptable solutions" in the following major categories: (a) program requirements, (b) design logic, (c) code compliance,
(d) technical aspects, and (e) completeness and clarity of presentation, adherence to test instructions, or required drawing(s) missing. By rule, the Board has established a passing score to be a 3 or 4 while a fail score is 2, 1 or 0. In order to pass, a candidate is required to receive at least two passing scores from the graders.
For the June, 1987 examination, approximately 150 professional architects were used to grade the candidates' examinations in two regional locations. The graders were experienced architects who had graded examinations in prior years. Before actually grading the solutions, the graders were given one-half day training sessions which consisted of receiving instructions in the grading process, reviewing the grading criteria and practicing on sample solutions that had already been graded by master jurists. The instruction was given by the director of examinations development for the National Council of Architecture Registration Boards (NCARB). The NCARB is the organization that prepares the examination questions.
The live grading began on the afternoon of the first day of the examination. The graders used a holistic grading approach which meant they reviewed the entire examination and made a pass-fail judgment. If a failing grade was assigned, the grader was required to check up to three so-called "weakness boxes" on the grading sheet to indicate in which areas the grader
found the candidate to be deficient. A grader was also allowed to make brief written comments next to the checked boxes to elaborate on the perceived weaknesses.
After being graded by the first grader, the examination was given to a second and third grader, both of whom were unaware of the scores assigned by the others. If a mixed score occurred, that is, two 2's and a 3 or two 3's and a 2, a master jurist then graded the examination. Therefore, it was possible for the same examination to be graded four times before a final score was assigned.
In Smith's case, he initially received two 2's and a 3, or an overall fail score. A master jurist reviewed the solutions and assigned a grade of 2. Thus, Smith did not pass Division (C). Grader 1217-153 assigned a score of 2 and noted that Smith was weak in category M, or completeness and clarity of presentation, adherence to test instructions, or required drawing(s) missing. Grader 1232-155 assigned a score of 2 and checked off areas A, G and K which meant Smith was weak in the areas of program requirements, code compliance and technical aspects, respectively. Finally, Grader 9929-075 concluded that a score of 2 was appropriate since he believed Smith was weak in areas D, E and G. Areas D and E pertained to design logic (circulation) and design logic (spatial relationships/ proportions/adjacencies) while Area G, as noted above, related to technical aspects. The fourth grader assigned a passing score of 3.
At hearing, Smith testified on his own behalf and generally reviewed his solution pointing out what he perceived to be his strengths and weaknesses. As he saw it, he attained a passing score. Smith is a graduate, with high honors, of the University of Florida School of Architecture in 1976 and received a master's degree in architecture from the university of Illinois in 1983. He is president of a construction firm in Fort Lauderdale that designs and constructs various projects, both large and small, and his partner is a registered architect.
In addition to his own results, Smith offered into evidence the solutions prepared by five other candidates who received passing scores on the June, 1987 examination. Smith then attempted to point out that, even though their solutions contained various flaws, the candidates nonetheless received passing grades.
Expert witness Butt, who is a registered architect, was a long time professor and former chairman of the School of Architecture at the university of Florida. He continues to do consulting work for the Board. Butt has been a grader on many examinations and was a master jurist as recently as 1987. Butt regraded Smith's examination and concluded that a score of 2 was appropriate. This was because he noted major deficiencies in the areas of design logic (circulation), code compliance, and completeness, clarity and presentation of the solution as to the structural system. More specifically Smith failed to adequately address certain public circulation questions on the building's first floor. This raised serious concerns as to petitioner's design logic and compliance with building codes. In addition, the structural system, which was required to be shown as part of the transverse section, was incomplete and contained several errors. Further, no structural system was shown on the west side of the building. Other difficulties included poor circulation around the monumental staircase, questionable design logic as to fire safety requirements in front of the building and the use of two hour rated firewalls throughout the entire building even though the fire code required only one hour rated firewalls. Butt's testimony as to the appropriate grade to be assigned Smith's
examination is found to be more credible than that of Smith and is hereby accepted.
Although several errors were noted on the other solutions of passing candidates, those errors were not so serious in nature as to require a failing grade. Further, such errors were solvable without major modifications in the design intent of the subject, and the candidates had completed all program requirements on the examination.
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 one who has failed a licensure examination, petitioner shoulders a heavy burden in proving that a subjective evaluation of his examination by an expert was arbitrary. Harac v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture, 484 So.2d 1333, 1338 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986) Sanitarians Registration Board v. Soloman, 148 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). As such, petitioner must show that the Board's grading of his examination was clearly devoid of logic and reason. Harac at 1338; State ex rel Topp v. Board of Electrical Examiners for Jacksonville, 101 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). Since no claim has been made that the examination instructions were misleading or insufficient, Jones v. Department of Professional Regulation, 524 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), that aspect of the validity of the grading process need not be addressed.
Petitioner has failed to sustain his burden of showing that the Board's grading of the solution was devoid of logic and reason. Harac, supra. Indeed, the testimony of expert witness Butt established that Smith failed to prepare minimally acceptable solutions in several major categories and therefore should have received a score of 2. The petition for a passing score should accordingly be denied.
