The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner successfully completed the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination on April 14, 2000, of the Board of Professional Engineers.
Findings Of Fact On April 14, 2000, Petitioner took the Examination. The minimum score required to pass the Examination was Respondent notified Petitioner that he had not successfully completed the Examination, having received a score of 69. The Examination is a national examination and is graded by national examiners, i. e., the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). A separate scoring plan is used for grading each essay question. A separate scorer is used for each essay question, generally scores a given question for all of the Examination. The identity of the candidate/examinee by name is not revealed; the candidate/examinee is given a number and is identified by the number given to him/her. By letter dated September 19, 2000, Petitioner notified Respondent that he was challenging essay questions numbered 120, 124, and 211 on the Examination and that he was requesting a re- scoring of those questions. Petitioner completed a Request for Review of Examination Item form for each question and included, from his point of view, why he should be afforded additional credit and what score he should receive for each question. Petitioner's Examination was returned to the NCEES for review and rescoring. NCEES' rescorer used the same scoring plan that was used for the Examination. NCEES' rescorer recommended that Petitioner receive no additional points for questions numbered 120, 124, and 211 and included a detailed rationale for the recommended score of each challenged question. NCEES determined that Petitioner was not entitled to additional credit and further determined that Petitioner's total raw score of 47, equivalent to a total score of 69, would not be changed. The maximum score achievable for each essay question was ten points, with points subtracted for various reasons as provided in the scoring plan. The score for each essay question was rounded to the next highest even number, resulting in a score of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10. For question numbered 120, Petitioner received a score of eight points. Petitioner challenges only one part of question numbered 120, regarding his computation of the ultimate bearing capacity for a given footing. For question numbered 120, Petitioner ignored the correction in the requirement for the mid-height water table. He quoted an equation from a reference material but failed to include the correction for the water table in his equation. Furthermore, even though Petitioner incorrectly calculated the effective weight of the soil, he failed to include in the question what he had calculated. The scoring plan for question numbered 120 requires a two-point reduction if the correction for the water table is ignored. Petitioner failed to correctly answer the challenged portion of question numbered 120. Petitioner should receive a score of eight points and, therefore, should not receive any additional points. For question numbered 124, Petitioner received a score of 6 points. Petitioner challenges only one part of question numbered 124, regarding his determination of the maximum sight distance obtainable in the given situation. Petitioner contends that the challenged part was improper, arbitrary, subjective, and open to interpretation. The challenged part of question numbered 124 asked the candidate to determine the maximum distance from the eye to the top of a six-inch high object on the road. It is clear that the challenged part asked for the determination as to how far one can see in a straight line before something obstructs one's view. In making the determination, no additional factors were to be considered, such as what the headlight factor was, or what the ability of a car to stop was, or what the conditions of the road were, or any other factor. Petitioner assumed additional factors. He assumed the sight distance for a sag vertical curve as a stopping sight distance. In calculating the distance, Petitioner made no reference to the obstruction in the calculation formula. His answer had a numerical difference from the correct answer of more than ten percent. The difference was 69 percent. The challenged part of question numbered 124 was not arbitrary, capricious, improper, subjective, or open to interpretation. According to the scoring plan, Petitioner's answer for question numbered 124 requires a two point reduction. Petitioner failed to correctly answer the challenged portion of question numbered 124. Petitioner should receive a score of six points and is, therefore, not entitled to receive any additional points. For question numbered 211, Petitioner received a score of four points. Petitioner challenges the question to the extent that he asserts that he answered 75 percent of the question correctly and, therefore, should receive a score of at least six points. Question numbered 211 is a two-part question. Petitioner admits that he made numerical errors in his solution and that he failed to answer the second part of the question. Petitioner contends that he had insufficient time to answer the second part and that, if he had sufficient time, he would have performed re-calculations and would have been able to demonstrate his understanding of the principles of pumps in series and pumps in parallel. Regardless of Petitioner's contention, his failure to answer the second part of the question was what was before the scorer and re-scorer and was reasonably determined to demonstrate that he failed to understand the development of a pump curve for pumps in series. Failure to demonstrate understanding of the development of a pump curve for pumps in series constitutes, according to the scoring plan, a fundamental error. Because of his errors in the solution and his failure to answer one part, the scoring plan requires that Petitioner receive a score of four points. Petitioner should receive a score of four points and is, therefore, not entitled to receive any additional points. Petitioner's answers were not arbitrarily or capriciously graded. The grading was not devoid of logic and reason. The scoring plan was properly used. At hearing, Petitioner demonstrated a great deal of knowledge regarding the challenged questions. However, he failed to demonstrate such knowledge on the Examination. Petitioner's score on the Examination should not be changed and, therefore, should remain at 69. Petitioner has not obtained the minimum score required to pass the Examination.
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 Professional Engineers enter a final order finding Giovanni L. Campodonico ineligible for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 4th day of May, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner holds a doctorate in counseling psychology and is currently practicing in Cape Coral as a locally licensed counselor. He meets all Florida experience requirements for licensing as a psychologist, but Respondent contends that he lacks the specific doctoral course work required for licensure by exception under the above-cited statute and Rule 21U-11.05, F.A.C. Petitioner qualified several years ago to take the licensing examination, which he failed in part. Following repeal and repassage of the Psychological Services Law, Petitioner's application to take the examination was denied. However, Respondent has changed its position on this point and has again certified Petitioner as qualified to take the psychologist's licensing examination. Petitioner herein seeks licensing without examination, and presented testimony and evidence which established his credentials. He did not demonstrate that he has taken any doctoral courses which relate exclusively to the biological bases of behavior or the cognitive-affective bases of behavior. He has, however, taken courses and a seminar which included such subjects among others. The exclusive nature of this course work requirement is established by Respondent's interpretation of Rule 21U-11.05, F.A.C., which implements Section 490.013, Chapter 81-235, Laws of Florida.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order denying the application for licensure. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 24th day of November, 1982.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner should be awarded credit for his answers to five (5) questions on the September, 1989, Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination administered on September 19, 1989. He failed to achieve a passing score on that examination. At the final hearing, Petitioner challenged the score he achieved on that examination by raising a general challenge to the essay portion of the examination and by challenging the score given for his answers to questions numbered 60 on Part I, and his answers to questions numbered 11, 36, 42, and 43 on Part II of the examination. Part I, Item 60, was correctly answered as "C" rather than Petitioner's answer of "B" because raisins and water are quickly consumed, minimally interfere with ongoing training activity and, therefore, would be an excellent functional reinforcer. However, reading would take much longer and is counterproductive since reading is a quiet, non-physical activity, and the staff member is trying to increase the client's physical movement. Part II, Item 11, was correctly answered with "A" instead of Petitioner's choice of "C" because "A" is a statement of a goal, which is a general statement. "C" is a good example of an objective because it includes specified criteria and time scales. The question asked for a goal. Part II, Item 36, asks which method of staffing violates legal and/or ethical requirements and standards. Respondent's expert admitted that the question was not well constructed and that answer "B" which was keyed as the correct answer is not correct. Respondent argues that solution "C" is the best answer since it violates the most legal and ethical standards. However, the question does not request the solution which violates the most legal and ethical standards. Since solution "C" and solution "A" chosen by Petitioner both violate legal and/or ethical requirements and standards", both "C" and "A" are correct answers. Part II, Item 42, is correctly scored as "B" rather than Petitioner's choice of "A" because "B" specifies the particular behaviors that the staff should be engaging in so that the monitoring or supervisory staff can observe a staff member and then mark on a checklist whether those specific behaviors did or did not occur. Answer "A" does not specify the particular staff behaviors being observed, and it uses a rating system which has inherent problems because different meanings can be attributed to each rating description. Part II, Item 43, is correctly scored as "A" rather than "C" as chosen by Petitioner. "A" specifies checking the staff behavior according to performance criteria on a monthly basis and is positively oriented by giving positive reinforcement for competent performance, giving corrective feedback, and requiring performance to improve to specified criteria. "C" does not describe the monitoring process, does not specify frequency, does not specify giving corrective feedback, and provides for praising only limited behaviors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding to Petitioner credit for his answer to Item 36 of Part II, and rejecting the remainder of Petitioner's challenges to the September 19, 1989, Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of September, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 21st day of September 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-2407 Petitioner's first through fourth, sixth, seventh, and eleventh through seventeenth unnumbered paragraphs have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument, or conclusions of law. Petitioner's fifth, eighth, and tenth unnumbered paragraphs have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's ninth unnumbered paragraph has been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, 6, and 7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 8 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Hedrick, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Robinson Foundation for Learning 1489 South University Drive Plantation, Florida 33324
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Professional Education Subtest (hereinafter referred to as the "Subtest") of the Florida Teacher Certification Examination tests the examinees' mastery and knowledge of general teaching methods and strategies. It is offered four times a year. The Subtest consists of approximately 130 to 135 multiple choice questions (each with four choices from which the examinees must choose the correct answer). The questions are printed in a question booklet. There is a separate answer sheet on which examinees record their answers to these questions by blackening, with a pencil, the appropriate bubble. Examinees are given two and a half hours to complete the Subtest. The Subtest is a criterion referenced test as opposed to a norm referenced test. To pass the Subtest, an examinee must attain a scaled score of 200. The Subtest is administered by the Office of Instructional Resources of the University of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "OIR") pursuant to a contract that OIR has with the Department. Dr. Sue Legg is the head of OIR. Pat Dovall is one of her assistants. Among OIR's responsibilities is the development, in cooperation with the Department, of a Test Administration Manual for the Subtest (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual") to guide and assist test site administrators, test room supervisors and test room proctors in discharging their duties at the test administration sites. The Manual developed by OIR provides that the following procedures should be followed in the seating of examinees: 3. Procedures for Seating of Examinees Seat examinees in the same seat they used for the morning session. For retake candidates testing only in the afternoon, follow the procedures below. Place a test book receipt card on each desk where an examinee will sit. Be certain you and your assistants have unimpeded access to every examinee. Assign examinee to a specific row or column of chairs. DO NOT ALLOW EXAMINEES TO SELECT THEIR OWN SEATING POSITIONS. Arrange seating in a manner which will separate those who are obviously acquainted. Seat examinees so they cannot see their neighbors' responses or exchange information. Fill in appropriate chairs in each row or column in order to expedite distribution and collection of test materials. Place left handed examinees in a separate row or in the last seat or each row of right-handed examinees. If use of chairs with right-handed tablet arms cannot be avoided, seat left-handed examinees with vacant chairs to their left for use as writing surfaces. If an examinee objects to his seating assign- ment, the room supervisor should make every attempt to work out a satisfactory solution. If this is not possible, the center supervisor should discuss the problem with the examinee. 4. Seating Arrangements Level Seating Arrangements: Seat examinees directly behind one another, facing in the same direction. Maintain a three-foot separation. Inclined Seating Arrangements: Maintain a three-foot separation front and rear and side-to-side. With respect to the subject of "individual examinee irregularities," the Manual states the following: Report on the Irregularity Report name social security number test name time by reset watch Misconduct Defined as any of the following: creating a disturbance; giving or receiving help; using notes, books, calculators; removing test materials or notes from the testing room; attempting to take a test for someone else. ANY EXAMINEE MAY BE DISMISSED WHO IS ENGAGING IN ANY MISCONDUCT AS DEFINED ABOVE: Two witnesses (or more) must observe the misconduct. The test center supervisor or room supervisor must be one of the witnesses. A full written report, signed by all witnesses, must be sent to OIR immediately. Cheating Defined as an examinee giving or receiving assistance during a testing period. Dismiss examinee from the testing areas if either of the above occurs. Examinee may not return. Dismiss examinee who repeatedly, after warning, continues to work on a test after time has elapsed. Dismiss examinee who uses prohibited aids. Include the following on the Irregularity Report: Examinee's identification Type of "cheating" and details of activity Warnings given Time on the reset watch Test section Degree of certainty Name of persons confirming the information Information given to the examinee at the time of the incident Attach examinee's answer folder to the Irregularity Report and return to OIR. Suspected Cheating Record name of examinee suspected. Record name of persons from whom you suspect the examinee was copying. Warn the examinee that you suspect cheating. Move examinee to provide further separation. Disturbances Defined as behavior of examinee during testing that disturbs others; loud noises or other conditions that lead to complaints by the examinees. Individual disruptive behavior Warn examinee that dismissal will result if behavior continues. Report the incident on the Irregularity Report. Outside disturbance Stop test. Have examinees close test books with answer folders inserted. Note time on the reset watch. Adjust time when test is resumed to ensure a full test period. OIR is also responsible for the selection of test administration sites, subject to the approval of the Department. The North Campus of Broward Community College (hereinafter referred to as "BCC") was selected by OIR and approved by the Department as one of the test administration sites for the August 5, 1995, Subtest. For the August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC, Dotlyn Lowe was the OIR- slected test site administrator, Greta Jackson was the test room supervisor, and Consuelo Johnson and Marcia Cadogan were the test room proctors. Each had served in similar capacities for prior examinations and, having previously reviewed the Manual, 2/ each was aware of its contents at the time of the administration of the August 5, 1995, Subtest. The August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC was administered in a classroom which had approximately 50 seats arranged in eight or nine rows. Each seat had a right-handed tablet arm for use as a writing surface. Petitioner was one of the approximately 35 examinees who took the August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC. He sat in the last occupied row of seats (in Seat Number 42). 3/ Seated immediately to his left, approximately two to two and half feet away (in Seat Number 41), was another examinee, George Sauers. On various occasions during the Subtest, Petitioner looked at Sauers' answer sheet to see Sauers' answers. 4/ Jackson, Johnson and Cadogan all witnessed Petitioner engage in such conduct. Jackson first noticed such conduct approximately an hour after the Subtest had begun. From her vantage point, she saw that Petitioner, instead of facing straight ahead toward the front of the room, was sitting with his body angled to the left in a position that enabled him to look at Sauers' answer sheet and see Sauers' answers without having to turn his head. 5/ Petitioner's left leg was crossed over his right leg and his left ankle was resting on his right knee. Petitioner had placed his question booklet on his left knee, but he was not looking at the booklet. Rather, his eyes were focused on Sauers' answer sheet. Jackson continued to watch Petitioner for another ten to twenty minutes from various parts of the classroom. During that time, she observed him repeatedly shift his eyes toward Sauers' answer sheet and then mark answers on his own answer sheet. Jackson then asked the two test room proctors, Johnson and Cadogan, to observe Petitioner. Johnson and Cadogan complied with Jackson's request. For the next fifteen to twenty minutes Johnson and Cadogan watched Petitioner and saw him engage in the same conduct that Jackson had observed. They then reported their observations to Jackson. Jackson thereupon consulted the Manual, specifically that portion dealing with the subject of "individual examinee irregularities," to determine what action she should take. Although she was certain that Petitioner had copied answers from Sauers' answer sheet, she was uncertain as to whether the provisions of the Manual relating to "cheating" or those relating to "suspected cheating" applied to such conduct. It was Jackson's understanding that an examinee who copied answers from another examinee's answer sheet was guilty of "cheating," as opposed to "suspected cheating," as those terms were used in the Manual, only if the "copying" examinee was knowingly helped by the examinee from whom he had copied, which did not appear to be the situation in Petitioner's case. Jackson, however, was not sure that this interpretation of the Manual was correct. She therefore dispatched Cadogan to seek guidance from Lowe, the test site administrator. Lowe sent her assistant, Jacqueline Edwards, to speak with Jackson. Edwards and Jackson determined that the provisions of the Manual relating to "suspected cheating" should be followed in dealing with Petitioner's conduct. Petitioner therefore was not removed from the test site. Rather, after being told that he was suspected of cheating, he was asked to change his seat (which he did without any argument) and allowed to remain in the classroom to finish the Subtest. In his new seat, Petitioner sat facing forward and had his test materials in front of him. He made no apparent effort to look at any of his new neighbors' answer sheets. Petitioner handed in his answer sheet before the expiration of the two and a half hours the examinees were given to finish the Subtest. Later that same day, following the administration of the Subtest, Jackson prepared and submitted a written irregularity report concerning Petitioner's "suspected cheating." 6/ Subsequently, on August 10, 1995, and again on August 28, 1995, Jackson sent memoranda to OIR accurately describing the incident. The memoranda were signed not only by Jackson, but also by Johnson and Cadogan, who did so to indicate that the information contained in the memoranda was accurate to the best of their knowledge. The August 28, 1995, memorandum was the most detailed of Jackson's three written statements 7/ concerning the incident. It read as follows: On Saturday, August 5, 1995, during the Professional Education Examination, I observed Mr. Lamothe looking at another examinee's (George Sauers) answer sheet. I observed Mr. Lamothe at his desk with one leg [a]cross the other and his test booklet approxi- mately 1 ft. away from him, resting on his crossed leg. However, Mr. Lamothe's pupils were in the extreme left corner of his eyes, looking onto Mr. Sauers' desk. Mr. Lamothe would then look up and once looked directly at me, pause as though he was thinking and then marked an answer on his answer sheet. I observed this incident, within an hour of the test, over a period of 15-20 minutes[.] I then asked the proctors (Consuelo Johnson and Marcia Cadogan) to also watch the examinee. After approximately 15-20 minutes, the proctors confirmed that they also observed Mr. Lamothe cheating. I sent Ms. Cadogan to the Test Center Supervisor, Dotlyn Lowe, for advice. Mr. Lamothe was not dismissed from test room, due to our interpretation of the Test Manual instructions on page 14, number 3 (that defines cheating as giving or receiving assistance, which was not the case). Therefore, we preceded as per the Test Manual instructions on page 15, number 4. I then informed Mr. Lamothe that he was observed/suspected of cheating and asked him to change his seat. Mr. Lamothe got his belongings together and moved to the front of the room. Mr. Lamothe finished his exam without further incident. Mr. Lamothe was sitting in the back of the room in Seat Number 42 and Mr. Sauers was sitting to Mr. Lamothe's left in Seat Number 41. Petitioner's scaled score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest was 215. Sauers scored a 229. The mean scaled score of the 2478 examinees taking the August 5, 1995, Subtest at all locations was 215.32. Of these 2478 examinees, 94.2 percent received a passing scaled score of 200 or above. 8/ 33. After reviewing Jackson's August 5, 1995, irregularity report and her August 10, 1995, and August 28, 1995, memoranda, 9/ Dr. Loewe consulted with his supervisor, Dr. Thomas Fisher. Dr. Loewe and Dr. Fisher determined, based on the information provided in these documents, that Petitioner's score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest should be invalidated. By letter dated September 18, 1995, Dr. Loewe informed Petitioner of this determination. The letter read as follows: This letter is in reference to your score on the August 5, 1995 Florida Teacher Certification Examination Professional Education test adminis- tration. At that administration test proctors witnessed you repeatedly looking at the answer document of another examinee. This constitutes cheating. As a result your score will not count and no score report will be mailed. 10/ If you dispute the material facts on which this decision is based, you may request a formal hearing by submitting a written request within 20 days of the date of this letter to: Dr. Thomas Fisher Administrator, Student Assessment Services Suite 701, Florida Education Center Florida Department of Educatio Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Failure to timely request a hearing constitutes waiver of administrative proceedings, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. If you wish to complete the teacher certification testing requirements you will need to register for and retake the Professional Education test at a scheduled administration. In response to Dr. Loewe's letter, Petitioner wrote the following letter, dated to September 28, 1995, to Dr. Fisher: This letter is in response to the memo that was sent to me on Septemb[er] 18, 1995 in regard to looking at the answer sheet of another examinee. I am appalled by these allegations. I spent several months studying for this exam and did not expect a response such as this (only a positive one). I am most definitely disputing these allegations. I request a formal hearing as soon as possible. Please send me further information on a time and place so I will be able to resolve this issue. A comparison of Petitioner's answers with those given by Sauers and the other examinees who took the August 5, 1995, Subtest lends further support to the conclusion that Petitioner cheated on the examination, as alleged in Dr. Loewe's September 18, 1995, letter to Petitioner. Petitioner answered 37 of the 132 questions on the August 5, 1995, Subtest incorrectly. Sauers answered 23 of the 132 questions incorrectly. Twenty-one of the questions Petitioner answered incorrectly, Sauers also answered incorrectly. Petitioner and Sauers chose the identical incorrect response on 16 of the 21 questions they both answered incorrectly. This exceeds what would be expected based on random chance. On 11 of these 16 questions where Petitioner and Sauers selected the same incorrect answer, their answer was different than the answer most of the examinees selected. This is highly unusual. For example, on Question 71, 77 percent of the 2478 examinees chose "C," which was the correct answer. Petitioner and Sauers both selected "A," a choice made by only 5 percent of the 2478 examinees. Petitioner took the Subtest again, for the fifth time, on October 28, 1995. In addition to having taken the Subtest in August of 1995, he had also previously taken the Subtest in April of 1994, August of 1994, and April of 1995. On the April, 1994; August, 1994; and April, 1995 Subtests he had received failing scaled scores of 192, 199 and 194, respectively. On the October 28, 1995, Subtest, Petitioner received a failing scaled score of 198. The mean scaled score of the 1744 examinees taking the October 28, 1995, Subtest at all locations was 213.11. Of these 1744 examinees, 95.4 percent received a passing scaled score of 200 or above. Petitioner was among the 81 examinees who took the Subtest on both August 5, 1995, and October 28, 1995. Of these 81 examinees, 67 scored higher on the October 28, 1995, Subtest than they did on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Such an increase is typical. Nine of the 81 examinees scored lower on the October 28, 1995, Subtest than they did on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Of these nine examinees, four scored one point lower, one scored three points lower, two scored four points lower and one scored six points lower. Petitioner was the other examinee who scored lower on the October 28, 1995, Subtest. His scaled score on the October 28, 1995, Subtest was 17 points lower than his scaled score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Such a significant decrease in scoring is consistent with his having cheated on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Because Petitioner cheated on the August 5, 1995, Subtest by copying answers from Sauers' answer sheet, his score on that examination cannot be considered a reliable and accurate indicator of the extent of his mastery and knowledge of the general teaching methods and strategies covered on the examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a final order invalidating the score that Petitioner attained on the August 5, 1995, Subtest because he cheated on the examination by copying answers from the answer sheet of another examinee. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of January, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 19th day of January, 1996.
