Judges: J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Latest Update: Jul. 06, 1988
Summary: Applicant did not prove test question was inadequate or unreliable measure of ability. Even if it were discarded applicant would not have passed exam.
88-1315.PDFSTATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CHARLES EUGENE RUTLEDGE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 88-1315
) FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION and ) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )
REGULATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Before J. Lawrence Johnston, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.
For Petitioner: Charles Eugene Rutledge, pro se.
For Respondent: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire
of Tallahassee
This examination appeal was heard in Tampa on June 22, 1988. In it, the Petitioner, Charles Eugene Rutledge, challenges the grade he received on the August, 1987, real estate salesman examination given by the Department of Professional Regulation for the Florida Real Estate Commission.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In August, 1987, the Petitioner, Charles Eugene Rutledge, sat for the real estate salesman examination given by the Department of Professional Regulation for the Florida Real Estate Commission.
On the examination, the Petitioner's grade was 74. Passing is 75.
Question 21 on the examination, worth 1 grade point, read:
Which of the following would not be considered a potential determinant of housing demand?
Natural increases in the population.
Migration patterns of household.
Net households formation.
All off the above would be considered potential determinants of housing demand.
The correct answer, based on the reference material that the Department of Professional Regulation told examinees and schools for examination preparation courses could be covered on the examination, is "d." The Petitioner answered "c."
Question 21 is not unfairly ambiguous. The negative phrasing of the question is perhaps somewhat tricky on first reading, especially in relation to answer "d." Does selection of "d" mean the examinee believes that all of "a" through "c" are potential determinants, or does it mean the applicant believes that none of "a" through "c" are potential determinants? But reasonable exercise of logic would lead one to the former conclusion. In any event, it is clear, and the Petitioner agrees, that at least "a" and "b" are potential determinants.
Use of the word "formation" in answer "c" is not unfairly ambiguous, either. It reasonably does not lead examinees to believe that household "formation" refers to a federally prohibited race or ethnic origin factor, as the Petitioner suggested in his testimony. Nor does it make any significant difference bearing on the Petitioner's selection of answer "c" whether "potential determinant of housing demand" is looked at from the perspective of a buyer or a contractor, as the Petitioner also suggested in testimony.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Examinations administered by the Department of Professional Regulation under Section 455.217, Florida Statutes (1987), must "adequately and reliably measure an applicant's ability to practice the profession regulated .
As found, the Petitioner in this case was unable to prove that question
21 on the August, 1987, real estate salesman examination failed to meet the standard of Section 455.217.
Even if question 21 were ambiguous so as to make it inadequate under Section 455.217, the Petitioner's best remedy would be for the question to be rejected under Section 455.217(1)(a) and for the Petitioner's examination to be regraded under Rule 21-11.011(3)(1), Florida Administrative Code. But then the Petitioner's grade would be 74 or 74.75, still not quite passing.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's appeal and establishing his grade on the August, 1987, real estate salesman examination as 74.
RECOMMENDED this 6th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida.
J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 6th day of July, 1988.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Charles E. Rutledge 707 Jean Ct.
Tampa, Florida 33634
H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional
Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 2
Jacksonville, Florida 32201
William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Docket for Case No: 88-001315
Orders for Case No: 88-001315
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
May 16, 1989 |
Agency Final Order
|
|
|
Jul. 06, 1988 |
Recommended Order
|
Applicant did not prove test question was inadequate or unreliable measure of ability. Even if it were discarded applicant would not have passed exam.
|
