The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her solution to Problem 120 on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on April 14, 2000, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On April 14, 2000, as part of her effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 46 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 46 converts to a score of 68. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested that her solution to Problem 120 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was referred to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solution to Problem 120 resulted in her receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about December 5, 2000. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated December 14, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problem 120 was worth ten raw points. Petitioner received six raw points for her solution to Problem 120. In her solution to Problem 120, Petitioner failed to properly take into consideration the height of the water table, did not compute the factor of safety for load-bearing capacity in the manner required, and made an arithmetic mistake. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES's scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that she could have received for her solution to this problem was a six, which is the score she received. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee made three errors. The solution approved by the Civil Engineering Exam committee called for a correction in requirement (a) for the mid height water table. The examinee ignored this correction. A two point grade reduction is called for. The examinee made a numerical error in evaluating the bearing capacity equation. This error called for a one point grade reduction. In evaluating the factor of safety the examinee added an erroneous load factor. A two point grade reduction is called for. With a total of five grade points lost a final grade of six is called for. SCORER'S RECOMMENDATION: Recommended score = six There has been no showing that the rescorer's analysis was in any way flawed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score she received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the April 14, 2000, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 16th day of April, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Test Anxiety at the February 1994 General Contractor's Examination The General Contractor's Examination used in the licensing of individuals as general contractors is divided into three parts, each of which may be passed separately. Credit for passing any one portion of the examination is good for a period of only one year. An applicant for a license as a General Contractor is limited in taking any part of the examination to three times per year. If an applicant fails to pass all three parts of the examination in one year, therefore, the applicant must commence the examination process anew, as if none of the portions of the examination had been passed. On February 17, 1994, William T. Davenport, sat for the Contract Administration portion of the exam for the third time within a one-year period. At each of the two examinations taken earlier, he had passed one portion. The Contract Administration portion was the only part he had not yet passed. Mr. Davenport was anxious as he waited to take the exam. He fully realized that if he did not pass the Contract Administration portion he would have to start the examination process all over again. His concern was generated not only from the perspective of delay and inconvenience attendant to having to repeat the entire exam process, but also from the perspective of cost. Repeating the process would require him to pay the full exam fee after having paid already a full examination fee for each of three examinations in the year of his attempt to successfully complete the examination requirements for licensure. Different Approved Reference Lists The Construction Industry Licensing Board approves reference materials that applicants may use during the examination and issues a list of those materials periodically. The Reference List for the February examination covered the period between November 1, 1993 and February 28, 1994. On that list was a book Mr. Davenport brought with him to the examination: Practical Mathematics, 3rd Edition, Copyright 1972. As Mr. Davenport sat nervously awaiting commencement of the exam, a proctor removed Practical Mathematics from his desk indicating that use of the book was not allowed. Mr. Davenport relates his response to the incident in this way, (Tr. 26.) The anxiety was very high at that point. My concern was try to get through the exam and, when the book was taken away from me, I panicked, to be blunt. I just totally panicked. Unlike the testing period from November 1, 1993 to February 28, 1994, Practical Mathematics was not on the Reference List for the next period of testing, from March 1, through June 30, 1994. The later list, issued January 13, had been out for over a month at the time of the exam. It is likely the proctor removed the book in mistaken reliance on the later list. As it turned out, the proctor returned the book to Mr. Davenport either shortly before the examination commenced. As he did so, the proctor commented, "Well, I don't know." (Tr. 25.) Mr. Davenport did not use the book during the exam because, "[a]t that point, I was reluctant to use the book ... I didn't want the test to be invalidated and I didn't want to be challenged." Id. Not using the book proved to be critical to whether Mr. Davenport passed the Contract Administration portion of the exam. He scored a 68. A passing grade is 70. Had Mr. Davenport answered correctly question number 3, which was worth four points, he would have received a 72, a passing grade. The question involves applying a percentage. Mr. Davenport could not remember whether in obtaining a percentage it is necessary to multiply or divide. Practical Mathematics has a chapter on percentages. The chapter teaches that multiplication is the arithmetic method to use when obtaining a percentage. But Mr. Davenport guessed that division should be used. He divided by the percentage and, therefore, chose an incorrect answer. Question number 3 on the exam is one of the questions that Mr. Davenport challenged originally: A 2-man crew has consistently worked at a labor performance standard ratio of 0.85 to 1. They are selected for a job requiring 60 (standard time) man-hours to perform. They will NOT work more than 8 hours per workday. NO work will be done on Saturdays or Sundays. There are NO holidays during the time the work will be performed. According to Builder's Guide to Accounting, if the job must be finished NO later than Friday afternoon at 5:00 p.m., what is the last day that they could be scheduled to start the job? Thursday of the previous week Friday of the previous week Monday of the same week Tuesday of the same week Respondent's. Ex. No. 2. The correct answer is "(D) Tuesday of the same week." The Department's expert witness explained that the correct answer is reached by way of an algebraic formula. The formula is: "the labor performance standard ratio = x (the unknown) divided by the standard time man hours" and then that answer is divided by 2 since the crew is a 2 man crew. Applied to the problem, the formula is: .85/1 = x/60, with x, once known, divided by 2. Using the formula, the calculation goes as follows: .85/1 = x/60; multiplying both sides of the equation by 60, .85(60) = x; carrying out the arithmetic calculation, x equals 51; 51/2 = 25.5. It takes 25.5 hours, therefore, for the crew to complete the job. If, as the problem states, the job must be completed by Friday at 5 p.m. and the crew works 8 hours a day, then it will take the crew 3 full days and 1.5 additional hours to complete the job. Working backward from Friday, the crew will work 8 hours on Friday, 8 hours on Thursday, and 8 hours on Wednesday for a total of 24 hours. The crew must start on Tuesday of the same week to work the additional 1.5 hours required to complete the job. One does not need to use algebra, however, to solve the problem. One can simply obtain the number of actual hours needed to complete the job by applying 85 percent (the crew's labor performance standard) to the number of standard time manhours called for by the job, in this case, 60. Here is where Mr. Davenport needed Practical Mathematics. Not knowing whether to obtain the actual hours by multiplying .85 times 60 or dividing .85 into 60, he guessed, in error, division. Through the use of division, it appears incorrectly that the number of manhours needed is 70.588. Divided by two, to take into account that there are two members of the crew, it would take the crew 35.294 hours. If it took the crew 35 hours and a fraction to complete the job on time, the crew would need to start on Monday of the same week. "(C) Monday of the same week," is the answer chosen by Mr. Davenport. Other Distractions and the Site of the Exam The examination was conducted in the Tallahassee office of the National Assessment Institute (NAI). The NAI was under contract to the Department as the vendor to conduct the exam. At the time of the examination, the exam site was a room approximately forty feet by thirteen feet four inches in size. It contained nine tables, each 18 inches by eight feet. The tables were spaced 35 inches from each other. At each table were two straight-backed chairs. There were seven candidates present for the examination. The first and last tables were unoccupied. Each of the seven candidates were allotted 34 square feet of floor space to be occupied by the candidate, the chair, the table and materials used in the exam. On the east wall of the exam room were three plate glass fixed windows. Two of the windows are 48 inches long by 36 inches tall and one is 36 inches long by 31 inches tall. The glass is one-eighth inch thick non- commercial grade. The windows are acceptable under NAI guidelines. On the other side of the windows is a workroom that measured 15.25 by 17.5 feet. Through these windows the examination supervisor seated in the work room can monitor the performance of the proctors in the exam room and see the candidates as they take the exam. The candidates, seated to the left of the workroom, do not face the workroom. Rather, their right side is exposed to the workroom. If the tables are numbered 1 through 9 on Respondent's Ex. No. 1, beginning with 1 on the side of the room marked on the exhibit as "N" or north, candidates who were seated at tables 4 through 8 were directly exposed to the workroom windows. Mr. Davenport was seated at one of the tables exposed to the workroom windows, most likely table 3, 4 or 5, that is, one of the center 3 tables. During the exam, he could see employees through the windows moving in the workroom and hear noise from the workroom. There were four employees who were present at one time or another in the workroom. Three of these employees were also engaged in proctoring the examination. In addition to the visual diversion posed by the four employees in the workroom, Mr. Davenport could hear sounds emanating from the room. The doors to the workroom, open so that the exam supervisor seated in the workroom could hear what occurred in the exam room, also allowed sounds from the workroom into the exam room. The source of the sound was the printer working, the four workers conversing from time to time and other noises associated with an office work environment. Sight of the employees and noise from the workroom prevented petitioner from fully concentrating on the exam. Mr. Davenport was also distracted by the activities of the proctors while in the exam room. During the four hours he sat for the exam, three of the four employees he observed in the workroom were also acting as proctors. They left the workroom in a rotation in order to spell each other. During their shifts as proctors, the three monitored the exam room. Mr. Davenport felt distracted by the coming and goings of the three as they rotated in and out of the room. Although there was a table designated for the proctors at a corner outside the workroom across from table 3, they rarely sat there. They sat at one of the empty tables or walked beside the seated candidates, all the time carrying out the function of a proctor: observing the candidates during examination. The FCILB Examination Administration Manual, applicable to the February General Contractor's exam, details the responsibilities of proctors in sixteen separate counts. No. 13 reads: Proctors observe at all times and move quietly about the room. Proctors do not disturb or distract candidates during the examination. If speaking is necessary, a proctor needs to be quiet and brief as possible. Proctors avoid asking candidates to move chairs to get around them, standing too close or directly behind candidates, or rustling papers and talking to other proctors in the vicinity. Petitioner's Ex. No. 2, FCILB Examination Administration Manual, p. 2-5. Movement of the proctors was necessary during the exam because of its open-book format. It is incumbent on the proctors of an open-book exam to insure that candidates do not copy questions form the examination into their reference materials. Other Candidates Reactions to the NAI's Tallahassee Office Among the three proctors the day of the exam was Ms. Jean Love. Ms. Love is also the Office Manager of the NAI's Tallahassee Office. She has worked for NAI for over two years. Before that she worked for eight and one-half years with the Department in examination services, during which she administered exams, including acting as a proctor for exams. In addition to the daily operations of the office, she oversees the administration of examinations, a function she fulfilled at the February General Contractor's exam this year. Ms. Love did not see any unusual or distracting activities on the part of the other two proctors and did not undertake any activities, in her opinion, that would have violated any of the responsibilities of proctors, including those quoted, above, from the FCILB Examination Administration Manual. The activities during the exam in the workroom, undertaken under Ms. Love's supervision, were normal activities undertaken every day at the NAI Tallahassee Office during and outside of times of examinations. Aside from typical office activities, such as conducting telephone conversations, scheduling candidates for tests, and doing paperwork that included hand-folding documentation, there was no unusual activity the day of the exam. The only event in the workroom that contributed at all to the sound of normally quiet office activity was the validation of a single candidate's check. No complaints about noise in the workroom during the February General Contractor's Exam were registered with the NAI Tallahassee Office. Nor did any of the candidates that day complain about the activities of the proctors. Ms. Love did not learn of Mr. Davenport's complaint until after he filed his challenge to the examination questions. While a proctor may have from time to time stood near Mr. Davenport as he took the exam, none of the proctors hovered over him or, in Ms. Love's opinion, did anything that would distract the average candidate. No complaint during the examination was made by Mr. Davenport. He did not complain about inability to concentrate on the exam until after he received the exam results. During Ms. Love's two years at the NAI Tallahassee office, no candidate, prior to Mr. Davenport, had ever complained about the testing environment for any reason. The comments she has received from candidates following exams have been solely complimentary. Over the last two years, the office has administered between 15 and 20 tests per month. Complimentary comments are made, on average, by one candidate per test. In the last two years the office has received, at a minimum, well in excess of 350 compliments on the testing environment from candidates. In contrast, Mr. Davenport's complaint stands alone as the only complaint about the office testing environment in the last two years at the NAI's Tallahassee Office.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, in the alternative: That petitioner's request for reexamination or a passing grade on the "Contract Administration, Division I" portion of the General Contractor's examination administered in February 1994 be DENIED; or, in the alternative, If the Construction Industry Licensing Board is willing to overlook the petitioner's failure to challenge his grade specifically on the appropriation of the book before the examination in the petition for formal hearing and the Department's legitimate objection to the presentation of evidence on the issue, that petitioner be allowed to sit for reexamination and, if he passes the Contract Administration portion of the exam, be credited with passing the other two portions of the exam as well as if all three portions had been passed in one year. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1994. DAVID M. MALONEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 1, the first and last sentences are adopted. The remainder of the proposed finding, and in particular the reference to Linda Chaffin, test proctor, is rejected because it is either not supported by the evidence or argumentative in nature rather than factual. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 2 is rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact Nos. 7 and 8 are rejected as unsupported by the evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the reference to Linda Chaffin is rejected. Ms. Chaffin was not identified by the evidence as the proctor who removed the book from petitioner prior to the exam. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted, in substance, insofar as material. COPIES FURNISHED: William T. Davenport 336 14th Avenue, North Jacksonville, FL 32250 William W. Woodyard Assistant General Counsel D B P R 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Richard Hickok, Executive Director C I L B 7960 Arlington Expy., Ste. 300 Jacksonville, FL 32311-7467 Jack McRay General Counsel D B P R 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Robert Powers Wheeler is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida consists of two parts, one of which is a written examination given in December of each year, and the other of which is a Site Planning and Design Test given in June of each year. Petitioner meets all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Petitioner took the Site Planning and Design Test portion of the National Architectural Examination in June, 1981. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour sketch problem involving design and site considerations. The examination is administered by the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as to all of the jurisdictions of the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination itself involves the design of a structure by an applicant including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans. Information supplied to the applicant includes a preexamination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. At the time of the examination itself, other information is supplied to the applicant to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. In general, the purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted to him by NCARB. This portion of the examination allows the national testing service grading the examination and, through them, the Florida Board of Architecture to determine if an applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements which are tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December of each year. The grading of the Site Planning and Design Test is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some 20 states, who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis, that is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. Further, the grader does not know the grade assigned to any applicant's solution by any other grader. Graders are instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and are required to determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicant's solution, whether a passing grade of "3" or "4" should be assigned to each applicant's solution. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive at least two passing grades from the three architects who independently grade the applicant's solution. Petitioner received a grade of "2," which is a failing grade, from each of the three graders who graded his examination. Although the Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture, who is also an architect, testified that Petitioner made a valiant effort to pass the examination, he identified several material areas wherein Petitioner failed to achieve minimal competency in his presentation or wherein Petitioner failed to observe program requirements. Petitioner failed to meet the owner's goals in that he approached the minimum square footage requirement while failing to provide amenities, which was a prime directive in the examination program. Petitioner had difficulty with regard to the pedestrian traffic flow on his third-floor plan. Petitioner had difficulty with his parking solution as well as with fulfilling the requirement of keeping the building architecturally compatible with surrounding structures. The Board's Executive Director, who has many years' experience in grading Site Planning and Design Tests, would have also given to Petitioner an overall grade of "2." The graders of Petitioner's examination were not uniform in identifying areas of concern regarding Petitioner's weaknesses in his solution. However, the procedure to be utilized by graders is set forth in the Grader's Manual and specifies that under the holistic grading system each grader is to determine his overall impression of a candidate's submission in order to assign a passing or a failing grade. After making his determination based upon the overall project, the grader then returns to his areas of special concern. Although the different graders may have identified different areas of concern, all graders found Petitioner's submission to be below minimal competency requirements. Although Petitioner disagrees with his grade, he presented no evidence to show that his examination was graded in an arbitrary or capricious way or in a manner different than that utilized in grading the examination of every candidate taking the same examination throughout the United States.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner has failed to achieve a passing score on the June, 1981, architecture examination and upholding the grade awarded to Petitioner on that examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 11th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Robert Powers Wheeler 5501 South West 147th Terrace Miami, Florida 33158 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue 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.
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.
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
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Glen P. Hamner, Jr., has applied for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architectural licensure examination, administered by the Respondent, consists of two portions, the written examination given in December of each year, and the site planning and design portion administered in June of each year. The Petitioner has complied with all requirements for admittance to the subject examination. The Petitioner sat for the 12-hour "Part A" examination in June, 1980. The examination consists of a drafting or sketching problem and is so constituted as to require the applicant for licensure to design a particular type of building to be accommodated to a particular site, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, designing elevations, building cross sections, facades and floor plans, as well as taking into consideration numerous criteria such as human traffic flow, parking, access to all areas, heating and cooling, including solar heating potential, prevailing climate conditions, use of natural lighting, and numerous other esthetic, engineering and legal requirements. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida, as well as to all other jurisdictions in the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination was adopted in Florida pursuant to the above-cited rules. Prior to sitting for the examination, each applicant, including the Petitioner, receives a pre-examination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished by that applicant and various requirements to which the Petitioner was expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. Immediately prior to commencing the examination itself, the Petitioner received other information designed to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical and architectural requirements of the problem. In general, the examination was designed to require the Petitioner to design a solution to the site plan and building design problem submitted to him by the NCARB and the Florida board. The pertinent portion of the examination thus allows the examination graders and, through them, the Florida Board of Architecture to determine whether an applicant, such as the Petitioner, is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, esthetic, energy and legal requirements in order to resolve the design and site plan problem after having been tested on the same requirements in written form in the initial portion of the examination administered in December of each year. The grading of the design and site portion of the examination was accomplished by submission of the Petitioner's work product to at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of 20 states. These graders are given training by the NCARB in order to standardize their conceptions of minimal competence required for achievement of a satisfactory grade on the examination. Each architect grader is then asked to review and score various solutions to this site and design problem, including the Petitioner's, in a blind grading basis. The grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration the various criteria set forth in Rule 21B-14.03, Florida Administrative Code, as well as in Respondent's Exhibit Three. The graders are instructed to note the areas of strength and weakness in an applicant's solution with regard to those grading criteria and then determine, based on an overall conception of the solution submitted by the applicant, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is defined as a holistic grade of three or four as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code. The applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architect graders who independently grade his solution in order to pass that portion of the examination. The Petitioner herein received two "1's" and one "2" on the examination, all of which were failing grades. Although he demonstrated an effort to comply with instructions set forth in the examination, as well as the pre-examination booklet, he failed to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation in several material areas such that the graders could make a clear determination that he understood and had complied with sufficient of the mandatory criteria to achieve passage of the examination. The testimony of the Respondent's witnesses (Herbert Coons, Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture and a grader in this examination, and Mr. Dan Branch, a grader of the petitioner's own examination) shows that the petitioner failed to supply sufficient information to permit a passing score to be awarded based on the criteria required to be considered and complied with by the authority cited below. The Petitioner's examination was deficient in a number of material respects. Many technical errors were pointed out by these witnesses, as well as by the petitioner's own admissions. The record thus discloses that the Petitioner's examination solution was deficient in its allowance for parking space and the ability of vehicular ingress to egress from the parking lot surrounding the building to be designed. There were no room designations on the rooms in the floor plan; there was only one rest room space and one set of toilets for men and women where two spaces and sets of facilities were required by the instruction program. The Petitioner failed to mark the building elevations on the building floor plans, did not depict where furniture would be located, and two different elevation drawings and two sectional drawings required to be depicted on the examination were not. The Petitioner did not show what type of material would be used in the roof nor what type of insulation, nor did he show what type and uses of glass were to be made. The Petitioner failed to give adequate consideration to grading and site planning, failed to adequately make notation of the types of materials to be used in the elevation's floor plans and wall sections, and generally did not adequately adhere to the program presented him. In general, it was shown by these witnesses that while the Petitioner had made a substantial effort to pass the examination, he had failed to place within the solution adequate information to allow the graders to determine clearly that his program or design could be a successful one. The Petitioner's own admissions show that he approached the examination in question in such a manner as to substitute his own judgment and opinion regarding which techniques and components were architecturally sound for the problem for those required to be treated as essential elements of the site and design problem posed him in the instructions. The program presented to the Petitioner assumed he would be in the hypothetical position of an "architect" presented with a program which had already reached a point of completion as to design ideas and site location. The insertion of his own ideas and judgment regarding various elements of the project is contrary to established architectural practice, for a program which had already reached the point of completion, in terms of initial design decisions, as that presented to the examination candidates in this instance. In view of the above-determined deficiencies, the Petitioner did not establish that his solution to the site and design-problem posed by the examination reflected sufficient and appropriate consideration of the requirements and criteria he was instructed to address.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the failing grade conferred on the Petitioner on the June, 1980, site and design portion of the architectural examination be upheld, and that the petition be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 19th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Glen P. Hamner, Jr. 1231 Bayshore Drive Valparaiso, Florida 32580 John Rimes, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samual Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a candidate for licensure as a professional engineer. Petitioner took the licensure examination in October, 1992, and received an overall score of 68.10. The minimum passing score for the exam was 70. The examination used by the Department is a nationally recognized test administered and graded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The scoring plan utilized by NCEES in this case provided, in pertinent part, that the score of 4 would be given where the applicant's response showed more than rudimentary knowledge but was insufficient to demonstrate competence. Petitioner received the score of 4 on problem #120 and felt his answer should have received a higher grade. To receive a score of 6 on problem #120, Petitioner's solution would have shown minimum competence by indicating the required volume of solids taken as the required volume of fill with all other analysis and computations being correct. According to the scoring plan, only "modest" errors in cost analysis or volume analysis computations are permitted to receive a grade of 6. Petitioner admitted that his calculation of volume on problem #120 was incorrect, but felt that since the error was only 10-15 percent, such error was reasonable given that he had correctly analyzed the majority of the problem. Petitioner's calculations for problem #120 were approximately 5900 cubic yards from the correct answer. Since Petitioner's volume calculations were incorrect, no credit was given for the cost analysis. Petitioner's error was not a "modest" miscalculation as set forth by the scoring plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to the professional engineer examination administered in October, 1992. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 19th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2652 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraph a) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph b) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph c) is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph d) is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ali Khalilahmadi 12755 S.W. 60 Lane Miami, Florida 33183 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Glen Hamner, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The examination consists of two parts. "Part B," which is a written examination, is given in December of each year and has already been successfully passed by the Petitioner. The other portion, "Part A," consists of a site plan and design problem and is administered in June of each year. The Petitioner met all the preliminary requirements for admittance to the licensure examination and took the subject design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination, adopted in Florida, in June of 1980. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour drafting or sketch problem involving design and site plan criteria and considerations. It is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as all other jurisdictions in the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Board (NCARB). The examination problem involves requirements for placing a structure on a site, designing and drawing the elevations, the building cross-sections, the facades and the floor plan. There are few factual questions disputed in this cause. The Board of Architecture has long required examination prior to a candidate being licensed as a registered architect in the State of Florida. This statutory authorization was continued in Section 481.213(2), Florida Statutes, when it was adopted by the Legislature in 1979. The original examination administered by the Board prior to 1974 was a seven-part, 36-hour examination, including as two of its parts a site plan and design problem essentially identical to that administered in the present "Part A" of the Professional Architectural Examination which is the subject matter of this proceeding. This original seven-part examination had been administered for many years by the Board until the Board, in consultation with NCARB and other jurisdictions who are members of NCARB, determined that examination did not adequately test minimal competency to practice architecture. This ultimate determination was made after a thorough review by NCARB prior to 1974 and ultimately resulted in the creation of a new professional examination, which was adopted by all the member states and which consisted of what is now "Part B" of the Professional Architectural Examination (the written examination). The Executive Director of NCARB, Samuel Balin, was instrumental in the preparation of the initial professional examination. His testimony described the concern the National Council and the Boards had regarding the original seven-part examination, that it was an extremely technical examination, aside from the site and design plan problem, designed primarily to cover subjects which had already been covered in most accredited college degree programs. Thus, at the time the NCARB and member boards were in the process of changing over from the seven-part examination to what is now the "Part B" professional examination, NCARB and the member boards of each state were also rapidly moving toward requiring the completion of architectural degrees by candidates as a prerequisite to entry into the architectural profession. As established by this witness, NCARB research showed that much of the material contained in the seven- part examination was already adequately taught in the various universities offering architectural degree programs, and thus the examination necessary for registration should focus on the professional aspects of architecture and the practical methods by which an architect actually must provide his services to the public, rather than merely being an examination consisting of a review of what had already been taught in the colleges and universities. Based on this intensive review regarding the most appropriate means to test architectural competency based upon what candidates were already receiving in various degree programs, the two-day "Part B" examination was developed and first offered in 1973, concurrently with the seven-part examination previously in effect. It was determined by the Respondent, other state boards and the NCARB that, since many individuals had successfully completed large portions of the seven-part examination, it would be unfair to not allow them to finish the examinations they had originally begun. A minimal number of parts passed on the seven-part examination was thus required in order for a candidate to continue to attain licensure based upon that examination during the 1974 examination session. Subsequent to 1974, an individual who had not already successfully completed the entire seven-part examination was required by the Board to take what is presently "Part B" of the current examination. Thus, from 1975 through 1977, the sole licensure examination, requirement in Florida was the "Part B" written examination provided to the Florida Board by NCARB and adopted by the Florida Board in its rules as Rule 21B-2.02(1), Florida Administrative Code (1974). During the period 1974 to 1977, the Board became increasingly concerned with deficient graphic abilities of examination candidates in drafting plans, as well as their physical ability to synthesize the problems faced by an architect in building design into overall solutions and to incorporate those solutions into appropriate building and site plans for clients. Accordingly, a number of states expressed to NCARB their desire to have a site and design plan problem again incorporated into the National Architectural Examination. As a result of these requests, NCARB initiated a study to determine whether such a site and design plan problem was really a legitimate tool to test the competency of an architect in synthesizing building and construction design problems and expressing in a graphic manner the various component skills or abilities required to practice the profession of architecture and, corollarily, whether or not the lack of it in the "Part B" examination rendered it a substandard tool for determining minimal competence. The study resulted in a report by a distinguished panel of architects from various jurisdictions which recommended that, in fact, the site plan and design problem should be included in the professional examination. Florida then, in 1977, determined, based upon the evidence presented to it by NCARB, as well as through its own professional expertise, that a site and design plan problem was indeed a necessary component in determining minimal competency of architectural licensure candidates. The NCARB, at its meeting of June, 1977, thus adopted the site and design plan problem as part of the uniform National Professional Architectural Examination. The Florida Board subsequently thereto, and after receiving detailed information regarding the contents of the new portion of the national examination, proposed its own Rule 21B-2.02(2), on March 31, 1978, by notice contained in the Florida Administrative Weekly, which rule constituted Florida's adoption of the new site and design plan problem added to the National Professional Architectural Examination by NCARB. A hearing was held before the Florida Board on April 28, 1978, and the rule was certified and filed with the Secretary of State on May 30, 1978. Documents required to be filed with that rule pursuant to Chapter 120 were admitted into evidence in this proceeding. The effective date of Rule 21B-2.02(2) was June 19, 1978, therefore, subsequent to that date the professional architectural examination in Florida has consisted of two parts. One part being "Part A" which was the new site and design plan problem and the other part being the previously adopted "Part B" (multiple choice examination). The Legislature in 1979 pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, "sunsetted" all professional boards. The Board of Architecture was reconstituted pursuant to Chapter 79-273, Laws of Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 79-273 it was provided that all rules in existence would be repealed as of January 1, 1980. Accordingly, on December 3, 1979, the Florida Board readopted, pursuant to Section 481.209, Florida Statutes, and Section 455.217, Florida Statutes, examination rules set out in Rules 21B-14.01, 14.02 and 14.03, Florida Administrative Code (the successors to the above-cited rule) . There have been no substantive amendments to those rules since their effective date of December 23, 1979, and the issues with which the Petitioner's challenge to the rules are concerned have not been substantially affected by that readoption procedure.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, David A. Mancino, was a candidate on the 1982 Architecture Design and Site Planning Examination administered on June 14 through 16, 1982, by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture. He is a 1979 graduate of the University of Texas and is presently employed by an architectural firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On September 10, 1982, Petitioner was advised by Respondent that he had received a failing grade on Part A of the examination. After reviewing his examination with the Executive Director of the Board in December, 1982, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his failing grade. That request prompted the instant proceeding. The professional architectural examination consists of two parts, Part A and Part B. The former part is known as the Site Planning and Design portion of the examination and requires a candidate to draw a solution to a problem involving (a) site plans, (b) floor plans, (c) building sections, (d) two significant building elevations, (e) diagrams of structural systems, (f) diagrams of environmental control systems, and (g) a typical wall section. Part A is blind-graded by at least three examiners designated and approved by the Department. Each examiner judges the individual applicant's entire work product pursuant to prescribed evaluation criteria set forth in Rule 21B-14.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. Grades are awarded by each examiner ranging from 1 through 4 depending on the quality of the work. An applicant must have a minimal average of 3 in order to pass this part of the examination. On the June, 1982 examination all candidates were required to design a small municipal airport terminal building in a midwestern location. The problem required a site plan, ground level plan/north elevation, second level plan, and a cross-section of the facility. Petitioner's solution has been received as Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. Petitioner received scores of 2, 2 and 2 on Part A of the examination. Generally, his solution was found to be weak in the following broad areas: (a) site planning and site location, (b) building planning and design, and (c) technical aspects. Specifically, the solution was weak as to the following aspects of site planning and site design: handicapped parking location/access from parking area across traffic lanes, service area location and traffic circulation, service drive curb cut, and site aesthetics, including trees, walls and pedestrian crosswalks. In building planning and design Petitioner's solution was less than acceptable in appropriate positioning and indication of ancillary elements, logical pedestrian circulation in relation to services, vertical circulation, conformance to program area requirements, conformance to life safety requirements, and building aesthetics in response to surrounding area, activities and owner goals. Finally, the technical aspects of the solution were weak in terms of the use of appropriate materials and construction methods, and vertical loads (roofs, columns and walls) All such deficiencies were confirmed by the Department's expert witness who reviewed and analyzed the examination, and who would have assigned a grade of 2 to the examination had he been an examiner. Petitioner generally disagreed with the noted weaknesses, and contended his solutions were satisfactory. He also questioned whether the problem was "fair", since the typical architect would probably never be called upon to design an airport terminal building during his or her career. Other than his own testimony, he offered no other evidence to contradict the examiners' conclusions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of David A. Mancino be DENIED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. David A. Mancino 2791 Northeast 57th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Christopher T. Mancino, Esquire Suite 2200 One Financial Plaza Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in Florida. The exam consists of two parts: the written part is given in December of each year and the site and design problem is given in June of each year. Todaro graduated from Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana in 1977 and had met the requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Todaro took the design and site planning portion of the national architectural exam in June, 1980. This consists of a 12 hour sketch problem involving the design of a structure by the applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans. The exam is prepared by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and is used by all states. Pre-test information supplied to each applicant includes a booklet providing the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which applicants are expected to apply themselves in order to receive a passing grade. At the examination, other information is supplied to enable the applicant to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. The purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted by NCARB and allows the national testing service grading the examination (and through them the Florida Board of Architecture) to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements which were tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December. The grading of the site and design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectual registration boards of some 20 states who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis. That is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the solution which lie is grading. The grader is instructed in how to consider the appropriate criteria. Graders are also instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicant's submission, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is a three, and an applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architects who independently grade the applicant's submission. In the instant cause, Todaro received two 2's and one 3. He was therefore notified of his failure to pass the examination and of his right to this hearing. While Petitioner established that an effort had been made on his part to comply with the instructions, it is clear that in several material areas he failed to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation, particularly as to adequate consideration to grading and site planning, adequate consideration to marking elevations on his floor plans and adequate notation regarding the type of materials to be used in his elevations, floor plans, and wall sections. In general Todaro failed to place within his solution adequate information to allow the graders to determine that his program could be used; he failed to synthesize the information which he had learned in his educational process, in such a manner as to prepare adequate plans to respond to the requirements of good architectural practice in the formulation of design and site plans.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Stephen Todaro to change his grade on the June, 1980, site and design architectural examination be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. H. E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Todaro 1507 N. E. 5th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 John J. Rimes, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue in this proceeding is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004, in relevant part, states: The criteria for determining the minimum score necessary for passing the Engineering Fundamentals Examination shall be developed through the collective judgment of qualified experts appointed by NCEES to set the raw score that represents the minimum amount of knowledge necessary to pass the examination. The judges shall use a Modified Angoff Method in determining the minimally acceptable raw score necessary to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination. Using the above mentioned Modified Angoff Method, the judges will indicate the probability that a minimally knowledgeable Fundamentals of Engineering examinee would answer any specific questions correctly. The probability of a correct response is then assigned to each question. Each judge will then make an estimate of the percentage of minimally knowledgeable examinees who would know the answer to each question. The totals each of the judges is added together and divided by the number of judges to determine the overall estimate of the minimum standards necessary. The minimum number of correct answers required to achieve a passing score will take into account the relative difficulty of each examination through scaling and equating each examination to the base examination. The raw score necessary to show competence shall be deemed to be a 70 on a scale of 100. A passing grade on Part Two of the examination is defined as a grade of 70 or better. The grades are determined by a group of knowledgeable professional engineers, who are familiar with engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering task. These professional engineers will establish a minimum passing score on each individual test item (i.e., examination problem). An Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) will be prepared for each examination item based upon the NCEES standard scoring plan outline form. An ISSP will be developed by persons who are familiar with each discipline including the item author, the item scorer, and other NCEES experts. On a scale of 0-10, six (6) will be a minimum passing standard and scores between six (6) and ten (10) will be considered to be passing scores for each examination item. A score of five (5) or lower will be considered an unsatisfactory score for that item and examinee will be considered to have failed that item. To pass, an examinee must average six (6) or greater on his/her choice of eight (8) exam items, that is, the raw score must be forty- eight (48) or greater based on a scale of eighty (80). This raw score is then converted to a base 100 on which, as is noted above, a passing grade will be seventy (70). The proposed changes to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004, in relevant part, state: The passing grade for the Engineering Fundamentals Examination is 70 or better. The criteria for determining the minimum score necessary for passing the Engineering Fundamentals Examination shall be developed through the collective judgment of qualified experts appointed by NCEES to set the raw score that represents the minimum amount of knowledge necessary to pass the examination. The judges shall use a Modified Angoff Method in determining the minimally acceptable raw score necessary to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination. Using the above mentioned Modified Angoff Method, the judges will indicate the probability that a minimally knowledgeable Fundamentals of Engineering examinee would answer any specific questions correctly. The probability of a correct response is then assigned to each question. Each judge will then make an estimate of the percentage of minimally knowledgeable examinees who would know the answer to each question. The totals each of the judges is added together and divided by the number of judges to determine the overall estimate of the minimum standards necessary. The minimum number of correct answers required to achieve a passing score will take into account the relative difficulty of each examination through scaling and equating each examination to the base examination. The raw score necessary to show competence shall be deemed to be a 70 on a scale of 100. The passing grade for the Principles and Practice Examination is 70 or better. A passing grade on Part Two of the examination is defined as a grade of 70 or better. The grades are determined by a group of knowledgeable professional engineers, who are familiar with engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering task. These professional engineers will establish a minimum passing score on each individual test item (i.e., examination problem). An Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) will be prepared for each examination item based upon the NCEES standard scoring plan outline form. An ISSP will be developed by persons who are familiar with each discipline including the item author, the item scorer, and other NCEES experts. On a scale of 0-10, six (6) will be a minimum passing standard and scores between six (6) and ten (10) will be considered to be passing scores for each examination item. A score of five (5) or lower will be considered an unsatisfactory score for that item and examinee will be considered to have failed that item. To pass, an examinee must average six (6) or greater on his/her choice of eight (8) exam items, that is, the raw score must be forty- eight (48) or greater based on a scale of eighty (80). This raw score is then converted to a base 100 on which, as is noted above, a passing grade will be seventy (70). Petitioner resides in Tampa, Florida. On April 11, 2003, Petitioner took a national examination that Petitioner must pass to be licensed by the state as a professional engineer. On July 1, 2003, Petitioner received a letter from the Board advising Petitioner that he had received a failing grade on the examination. On July 2, 2003, Petitioner unsuccessfully requested the raw scores on his examination from a representative of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The NCEES is the national testing entity that conducts examinations and determines scores for the professional engineer examination required by the state. On July 9, 2003, Petitioner submitted a formal request to the Board for all of the raw scores related to Petitioner "and all past P.E. Exams that the Petitioner had taken." A representative of the Board denied Petitioner's request explaining that the raw scores are kept by the NCEES and "it is not their policy to release them." The Board's representative stated that the Board was in the process of adopting new rules "that were in-line with the policies of the NCEES." On July 31, 2003, Petitioner requested the Board to provide Petitioner with any statute or rule that authorized the Board to deny Petitioner's request for raw scores pursuant to Section 119.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). On the same day, counsel for the Board explained to Petitioner that the Board is not denying the request. The Board is unable to comply with the request because the Board does not have physical possession of the raw scores. Petitioner and counsel for Respondent engaged in subsequent discussions that are not material to this proceeding. On August 6, 2003, Petitioner requested counsel for Respondent to provide Petitioner with copies of the proposed rule changes that the Board intended to consider on August 8, 2003. On August 27, 2003, Petitioner filed a petition with the Board challenging existing Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004. The petition alleged that parts of the existing rule are invalid. Petitioner did not file a challenge to the existing rule with DOAH. The Petition for Hearing states that Petitioner is filing the Petition for Hearing pursuant to Subsections 120.56(1) and (3)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). However, the statement of how Petitioner's substantial interests are affected is limited to the proposed changes to the existing rule. During the hearing conducted on January 29, 2004, Petitioner explained that he does not assert that the existing rule is invalid. Rather, Petitioner argues that the Board deviates from the existing rule by not providing examinees with copies of their raw scores and by failing to use raw scores in the determination of whether an applicant achieved a passing grade on the exam. Petitioner further argues that the existing rule benefits Petitioner by purportedly requiring the Board to use raw scores in the determination of passing grades. The elimination of that requirement in the proposed rule arguably will adversely affect Petitioner's substantial interests. The Petition for Hearing requests several forms of relief. The Petition for Hearing seeks an order granting Petitioner access to raw scores, a determination that Petitioner has met the minimum standards required under the existing rule, and an order that the Board grant a license to Petitioner. The Petition for Hearing does not request an order determining that the proposed rule changes constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
