The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive credit for answers given to certain specified questions on the Cosmetology Examination administered in December 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation and the Board are responsible for developing and administering the cosmetology examination to candidates who seek licenses to practice cosmetology in Florida. Sections 455.217 and 477.022, Florida Statutes (2002). Ms. Ross sat for the cosmetology examination on December 12, 2002. She received a scaled score of 72 points, which is a failing score. Had Ms. Ross answered two more questions correctly on the examination, she would have achieved a passing scaled score of 75 points. The Candidate Information Booklet provided to candidates for the Cosmetology Examination administered in December 2002 included an explanation of the examination and a list of textbooks and other reference sources, among which were Milady's Standard Textbook of Cosmetology-2000 ("Milady's") and Salon Fundamentals: A Resource for Your Cosmetology Career ("Salon Fundamentals"). It was suggested in the booklet that the textbooks might be useful to the candidates and that the candidates might want to review them because the books include information that is "very appropriate for measuring minimum competency on the Cosmetology Licensure Examinations." According to the Board, the correct answer to question 55 is "A"; Ms. Ross chose answer "D." Question 55 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer, while not set forth word-for-word, can be derived from information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals and is also consistent with the practice of the two experts testifying on behalf of the Board. Ms. Ross should not receive credit for her answer to question 55 because the answer she gave is not the correct answer. According to the Board, the correct answer to question 4 is "C"; Ms. Ross chose answer "D." Question 4 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer, while not set forth word-for-word, can be derived from information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals. Ms. Ross's attempt to distinguish between "very curly hair" and "curly ethnic hair" for purposes of the answer to this question is not convincing; the technique that is described in the answer the Board deems correct would, according to the sources, apply to very curly hair, regardless of the ethnicity of the client. Ms. Ross should not receive credit for her answer to question 4 because the answer she gave is not the correct answer. According to the Board, the correct answer to question 45 is "C"; Ms. Ross chose answer "A." Question 45 is clear and unambiguous, and one correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer, while not set forth word-for-word, can be derived from information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals. Ms. Ross's rationale for selecting answer "A" indicates that she was not focusing on the specific procedure identified in question 45. Ms. Ross should not receive credit for her answer to question 45 because the answer she gave is not the correct answer. According to the Board, the correct answer to question 21 is "C"; Ms. Ross chose answer "A." Question 21 is clear and unambiguous, and one correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer, while not set forth word-for-word, can be derived from information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals. Ms. Ross's rationale for selecting answer "A" indicates that she was not focusing on the specific information elicited by question 21. The question requires the candidate to respond with the proper "sequence of steps" for the procedure, and the answer deemed correct by the Board includes the most logical sequence of steps, given the information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals. Both of the Board's expert witnesses agreed that the answer deemed correct by the Board was, in fact, the correct answer to question 21. One of the Board's expert witnesses testified, however, that she would not shampoo and dry the hair of a black man as part of the sequence of steps for the procedure that is the subject of question 21. This testimony is not sufficient to render the question ambiguous or the selection of answers misleading: First, question 21 does not include reference to the ethnicity of the client, and, second, the answer that the Board deems correct is the only answer that, excluding the reference to shampooing and drying the hair, contains the proper sequence of steps for the specified procedure. Therefore, even if it were inappropriate to shampoo and dry the hair as one of the steps for the procedure that is the subject of question 21, Ms. Ross's answer to question 21 does not correctly identify the sequence of the other steps that should be followed in performing the procedure. Ms. Ross should not receive credit for her answer to question 21 because the answer she gave is not the correct answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, issue a final order finding that Angelica Ross is not entitled to credit for her answers to questions 4, 21, 45, and 55 of the Cosmetology Examination administered in December 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2003.
The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for allowing students to work in his salon prior to the issuance of a work permit.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on May 31, 1977 charging: "That you, said Anthony LaRoche on March 15, 1977 did allow students to work in your salon prior to the issuance of work per- mits Anthony's, Jacksonville, Florida." Anthony LaRoche, Respondent, was the owner of several businesses and has managers to operate his beauty salons. A young man was hired to work in the Respondent's beauty salon to report to work at a subsequent time when the school attended by the cosmetologist would have sufficient time to send his credentials to the office of the State Board and for him to receive his work permit from the State Board. The cosmetologist reported for work and began working and was working at the time of the inspection on March 15, 1977 and had not yet received his work permit although he had previously applied for it. Upon learning of the inspection and the violation, the Respondent immediately sent for the credentials but the work permit was not received for 22 days thereafter. After the Respondent learned that the cosmetologist did not hear from it he ceased doing the work of a cosmetologist until his work permit was received.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to Respondent for failing to ascertain whether an employee was duly certified to work in the salon owned by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1971, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Haggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Anthony LaRoche, President Anthony LaRoche, Inc. 5566 Ft. Caroline Road Jacksonville, Florida 32211
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure by examination to practice cosmetology within Florida after having completed 600 hours of instruction in cosmetology. Petitioner took the examination in Winter Haven, Florida, on August 27, 1981. The examination consists of two parts, written and practical, each of which must be passed to obtain licensure. The passing grade on each portion of the examination is 75. Petitioner received a grade of 85 on the written and 73.5 on the practical examination. The practical examination of August 27, 1981, was graded by Virginia Stolz and Kathryn Clymer, both of whom are licensed cosmetologists who have been employed by the Department of Professional Regulation as examiners for cosmetology examinations during the past six years. The practical examination is an opportunity for examinees to demonstrate their competence by performing several cosmetology services within a given amount of time. The services performed, the given time for each service, and the number of points assigned each service are defined by Board rule and incorporated into the grading score sheet for the practical examination. During the hair shaping portion of the practical examination, the Petitioner informed an unidentified examiner of problems with her model's hair which included gaps in the hair from a recent tint and haircut. The Petitioner was informed by the unidentified examiner that she should skip over the gaps since they could not be shaped into the haircut and corrected. Notwithstanding this, two points were deducted frog Petitioner's score due to gaps in her model's hair. When deficiencies are reported, it is the normal procedure for an examiner to make notations in writing; however,. the examiner's notes pertaining to the examination of August 27, 1981 have been destroyed. If an examiner is informed of deficiencies in a model's hair prior to the start of the examination, points for the deficiency are not deducted when the problem is noted by the examiner. In Petitioner's case, however, the timer had already started before she was given the opportunity to point out the gap problem with the model's hair and no notes exist to confirm that the examiner did not deduct points for the preexisting problem. It is possible to lose time by reporting deficiencies because they are reported after the timer is started. The amount of time normally lost in such a situation is 2-3 minutes out of the 30 minutes allocated for hair shaping. Following the 30 minutes allocated for hair shaping, the Petitioner was to clean the station where she performed the haircut. The clean up time was in addition to the 30 minutes given for the shaping procedure and had no maximum time set for the procedure to be completed. When she finished the hair shaping procedure, the Petitioner waited for a broom and dust pan to clean her station. Since she was fartherest away from available cleaning materials, Petitioner was among the last examinees to get access to the cleaning tools. Due to her concern that points would be deducted if she stayed in the station area too long waiting for cleaning tools, Petitioner did not clean her station and instead went to the area where other examinees were sent. When the examiners realized that Petitioner had joined the other examinees and not cleaned her station, she was sent back to her station to sweep her model's hair. However, points were deducted from her test score for failing to clean her station despite no time limit being attached to the cleaning portion of the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner be given a passing grade on the practical portion of the August 27, 1981 cosmetology examination based on deductions which were erroneously made on the hair shaping and station cleaning portion of her practical examination. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 26th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: George Waas, Esquire SLEPIN SLEPIN LAMBERT & WAAS 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan Tully, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Florida Board of Cosmetology Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to question numbers 21 and 24 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination administered in April 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April 24, 1998 professional engineering licensing examination with an emphasis in civil engineering. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. In order to achieve a score of 70, Petitioner needs a raw score of 48. Therefore, Petitioner is in need of at least one additional raw score point. Petitioner is challenging question numbers 21 and 24. They are both multiple-choice questions and worth one point each. Exhibit 10 contains a diagram for the candidate's use in answering question numbers 21 and 24. Question 21 requires the examinee to calculate the percentage of wooded land on the diagram. The diagram contains a rectangle labeled "woodlot," and within the rectangle are three non-contiguous areas marked with schematics of trees. The Petitioner reduced the percentage of wooded area to conform to the portion of the area labeled "woodlot" marked with schematics of trees. In regard to question number 21, the Petitioner asserts that as a matter of convention, by failing to put the trees everywhere in the wooded lot, one may assume that there are trees only where there is a schematic of the trees. The Petitioner's challenge was rejected on the basis that the scorer opined that it is standard practice that drawings are only partially filled with details, and the most reasonable interpretation of the site plan drawings is that the woodlot fills the entire area enclosed by the rectangle. John Howath, a professional engineer, testified regarding accepted conventions in engineering drawings. In Howath's opinion the drawing on the examination used inconsistent methodologies and was confusing regarding whether all of the area designated by the label or "call out" of woodlot was in fact wooded. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Howath referred to drawings in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual which showed areas on drawings totally covered with visual indications of a particular material or condition. Peter Sushinsky, a professional engineer, testified as an expert for the Respondent. Mr. Sushinsky acknowledged the Petitioner's exhibits; however, Mr. Sushinsky noted that these were only a few examples of drawings that are available. Mr. Sushinsky referenced construction drawings he had seen in his practice with partial "cross-hatching" just like the diagram on the examination. In sum, Mr. Sushinsky's experience was that diagram might be totally or partially "cross-hatched." In Mr. Sushinsky's opinion it was not a bad diagram, only subject to a different interpretation by a minor group. Question number 24 asked the candidate to calculate the weir peak discharge from the catchment area using the rational formula. The Petitioner asserts the question is misleading and should read, "What is the peak discharge from the watershed?" The Petitioner bases his assertion on the ground that the "rational formula" is used to compute discharge from a watershed not a weir, as mandated by the question. The scorer did not address the Petitioner's concerns. The scorer stated, "It is clear from the item statement that the weir equation is not to be used." However, the questions ask the candidate to compute the weir discharge. Jennifer Jacobs, a professor of engineering, testified regarding the rationale formula that it was used to calculate watershed discharge and not weir discharge. All experts agreed that the rational formula is not used to compute weir discharge. The experts all agree that the question was confusing because the rational formula is not used to calculate the discharge from a weir. The Respondent's expert justifies the answer deemed correct on the basis that if one uses the rational formula and computes the watershed discharge, one of the answers provided is close to the result. The Respondent's expert calculated the watershed discharge as 230.6 cubic feet per second (cfs). The answer deemed correct was 232 cfs. The expert stated the weir attenuates flow. If the weir attenuates flow one would expect an answer less than 230.6 cfs., not an answer equal to or greater than 230.6 cfs. The amount of attenuation is based upon the physical features of the impoundment area and the mouth of the weir. Weir Attenuation varies. The only answers smaller than 230.6 are 200 or 32. Is the 232 cfs. answer wrong because it does not allow for attenuation by the weir? How much did the weir attenuate the flow? Under these facts, the question is capricious. The Respondent argues that the Petitioner didn't follow instructions while acknowledging that the "correct" answer is not the answer to the question that was asked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order awarding Petitioner two raw points and a passing score on the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark W. Nelson 720 Northwest 31st Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
