The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for her answers to questions 55 p.m. and 56 p.m. on the Fundamentals of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination given on April 15, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The examination for licensure of an engineer in the State of Florida is administered by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation, a not-for-profit corporation, created under Section 471.038, Florida Statutes. A written examination is authorized by Rule 61G15-21.001, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent contracts with the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying to provide engineering licensure examinations. This practice is approved by Section 455.217, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G1 5-21.005, Florida Administrative Code. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying develops standardized tests given for licensure throughout the United States and ensures that the questions are not ambiguous through a number of methodologies. A candidate for licensure as an engineer intern must attain a "scaled" score of 70 to pass the examination. On the examination taken by Petitioner, the minimum "raw" score required to attain a "scaled" score of 70 was 107; Petitioner's "raw" score was 105. Petitioner had initially challenged five questions; at the hearing, Petitioner withdrew her challenge to three questions; the two remaining challenged questions (55 p.m. and 56 p.m.) were "ethical" questions, i.e., they dealt with questions of engineering ethics. The challenged questions were multiple-choice questions. The test gives the following directions: "Each of the questions or incomplete sentences below is followed by four suggested answers or completions. Select the one that is the best in each case and then fill in the corresponding space on the answer sheet." (Emphasis added.) The challenged question 55 p.m. deals with an engineer hired to prepare a report on the design, manufacture, and assembly of a structure. The report contains references to "shoddy workmanship." Petitioner states that while she agreed that answer A [the graded "correct" answer] is correct, she believed that the inclusion of the word "also" in answer B included answer A in answer B by reference and therefore she chose B as her answer. Petitioner acknowledges that the word "also" in answer B could be referring to language in the question rather than in answer A. Answer A specifically refers to "engineering issues" which the engineer is "qualified to assess"; answer B indicates that the references to "shoddy workmanship" are "personal opinions" and "not professional opinions". An engineer is obligated by his license not to give an opinion for which he does not have expertise. An engineer should not render a personal opinion in a report in which the engineer gives a professional opinion. The challenged question 56 p.m. deals with an engineer who lacks expertise dealing with space frames but designed structures which included same. Regarding challenged question 56 p.m., the Petitioner acknowledged that answer A (the graded "correct" answer) could have been the correct answer as well as the answer she chose, answer D. Answer D indicates that the engineer was unethical because he did not refer that matter to the Registration Board. An engineer should not contact the Registration Board and report to the Board that someone has asked him to do something unethical; it is incumbent upon an engineer to practice engineering ethically without the input of the Board. In both instances in answering the challenged questions the Petitioner failed to provide the "best" answer and at hearing acknowledged that the graded "correct" answer by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveyors was a "correct" answer even though she chose a different answer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Engineers Management Corporation enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to questions 55 p.m. and 56 p.m. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 27th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Yvette Bowman 3401 North Lakeview Drive Apartment 216 Tampa, Florida 33618 Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Mr. Harrison's response to question 8 on the General Contractor's Examination given on October 3, 1985 was incorrectly graded. If Mr. Harrison were given credit for his answer to that question, he would pass the examination. The examination was correctly graded, however, and the petition filed by Mr. Harrison should be dismissed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. William D. Harrison took the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board's General Contractor's Examination on October 3, 1985. According to his grade report his grade was 68.65. A total grade of 69.01 is necessary to pass the examination. Rule 21E-16.05, Florida Administrative Code. If he were given credit for the answer he gave to question number 8 on the portion of the examination given the afternoon of October 3, 1985, he would pass the examination. The question at issue sought an estimate of the amount of concrete necessary to construct entrance steps for a hypothetical building. The Department of Professional Regulation, Office of Examination Services had prepared drawings for a building consisting of 14 different sheets showing various elevations, aspects or other details of the building. These drawings were used in answering the examination questions. Question 8 read: The total volume of concrete to place the concrete entrance steps (only) is cubic yards. Select the closest answer. (A) 4.7 (B) 5.9 (C) 6.5 (D) 7.0 Mr. Harrison chose answer (A). The correct answer is answer (D). Sheet 4 of 14 of the drawings shows the first floor plan for the building. There are a total of four 11'6" spans of concrete entrance steps to the covered entry on the north and south sides of the building. The detail of the steps on sheet 4 of 14 shows that they generally have a 6" rise and are 1' in depth. According to the same sheet of the drawings, there are also other concrete steps to be constructed on the east and west sides of the building of 11' spans. In the northwest and southeast corners of the building there are enclosed stairwells serving the four floors of the building. The steps in these stairwells also contain concrete as an element in their construction. Mr. Harrison contends that the question is phrased in a misleading manner. In his view only the north and south entrance steps should be included in the calculation of the amount of concrete needed for "entrance steps (only) ." According to his calculations, placing those entrance steps would require 4.889 cubic yards of concrete. The closest answer available is 4.7, answer (A), which he gave. By reference to a dictionary of construction terms, Mr. Harrison argues that a building's area excludes uncovered entrances, terraces and steps. He believes he correctly excluded the covered steps on the east and west sides of the building from the calculation of "entrance steps," treating them as part of the building area, not entrances. The Departments contends that the question is specifically constructed to test the level of detail with which examinees read the drawings. On sheet 4 of 14 the symbol "A/4" appears, with a line cutting perpendicularly through the western steps. That symbol points out to examinees that a detailed drawing for the construction of the concrete entrance steps appears on that sheet. That perpendicular line through the western steps demonstrates that the eastern and western steps are "entrance steps" in the plans, and must be included in the calculation required in question 8. Answer (A), chosen by Mr. Harrison, is a distractor specifically designed to determine whether examinees have included the east and west steps in their calculation. If excluded, the calculation yields an answer of exactly 4.7 cubic yards of concrete (Mr. Harrison's calculation of 4.889 is slightly off). If all four spans of entrance steps are included, the correct answer of 7.0 cubic yards is obtained. The phrase "entrance steps (only)" appears in question 8 to make clear to examinees that the concrete allocable to the steps of the enclosed northwest and southeast stairwells is not part of the calculation. After an examination is graded, but before the grade reports are distributed, the Department does a statistical analysis of the patterns of responses to all examination questions to determine whether those patterns reveal a problem such as a general misreading of any questions. If a question performs badly, it can be deleted from the grading process before the grade reports are distributed to examinees. The analysis done on the answers to question 8 shows that of the 887 examinees, 180 of those who ultimately scored in the upper 27 percent of the examination overall answered the question correctly with answer (D); of those scoring in the middle 46 percent on the overall examination, 148 gave the correct answer; of those examinees scoring in the lower 27 percent overall, only 69 gave the correct answer. Among those choosing answer (A), as Mr. Harrison did, 36 of those who scored in the upper 27 percent overall gave that answer, 116 of those in the middle 46 percent chose the answer, and 102 of those scoring in the lower 27 percent chose that answer. Statistically, the question performed well. The evidence shows that answer (A) acts as the distractor which it was designed to be. Those who do not read the drawings carefully select the answer which would be correct if only the north and south steps are included in the calculation. Given the specificity of the drawing showing the east and west steps as entrance steps, however, Mr. Harrison's objection to the grading of his answer to question 8 is not well founded. Mr. Harrison had also raised, in his letter challenging his grade, an objection to another test question. At the hearing, however, he abandoned that challenge.
Recommendation It is recommended that the petition for regrading of the General Contractor's Examination given in October 1985 by the Construction Industry Licensing Board be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of April 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 28th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. William D. Harrison 3490 Artesian Drive Lantana, Florida 33462
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), while in a classroom at Neptune Beach Elementary School on September 19, 2013, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, the documentary evidence presented, and the record as a whole, the following facts are found: The Florida Education Practices Commission (“the Commission”) is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to the instant case, Ms. Kennedy held Florida Educator Certificate 889874, covering the areas of Elementary Education and English for Speakers of Other Languages. Ms. Kennedy’s certificate is valid through June 30, 2017. Ms. Kennedy began her teaching career in 2001 after graduating with a bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education from the University of North Florida. The school district assigned Ms. Kennedy to Neptune Beach Elementary on September 9, 2013, approximately two weeks into the 2013-2014 school year. The principal of Neptune Beach Elementary, Elizabeth Kavanagh, then assigned Ms. Kennedy to a third-grade class being taught by Ms. Amber Rodenkirch. It is unclear whether the two teachers were equals in the classroom or if Ms. Rodenkirch gave direction to Ms. Kennedy. The students in Ms. Rodenkirch and Ms. Kennedy’s class (“the class”) sat at tables rather than in chairs with a writing surface attached thereto. As illustrated by Petitioner’s Exhibit 13, the chairs utilized by the students were of two types. One type consisted of a plastic seat resting on metal tubes. The metal tubes had four flat ends making contact with the floor. The second type of chair also consisted of a plastic seat resting on metal tubes. However, the second type of chair made contact with the floor by having two metal tubes lying flat on the floor. As a result, it would be much easier to slide the second type of chair along a carpeted floor than the first. When seated in the second type of chair, the children in the class would often lean forward. By doing so, they would cause the back portion of the metal tubes on which the seat rested to rise up off the floor. When working with a student, Ms. Rodenkirch and Ms. Kennedy would be standing behind or next to a seated student. If that student was seated in the second type of chair and leaning forward, there was a tendency for the metal tubes on which the seat rested to come down on a teacher’s foot once the student leaned or sat back in his or her chair. Because it was painful for a chair to come down on her feet, Ms. Kennedy greatly preferred the first type of chair to the second. On September 19, 2013, Ms. Kennedy had recently been in a surfing accident which left one of her feet black and blue. In all likelihood, Ms. Kennedy was particularly concerned that day with the children leaning forward in their chairs. On September 19, 2013, Ms. Rodenkirch was working with a student and was 10 to 14 feet away from Ms. Kennedy. A student, C.J., was leaning forward in his chair, and Ms. Rodenkirch witnessed Ms. Kennedy tip C.J. out of his chair. After getting up from the floor, C.J. sat back down in his chair and appeared to be startled. Ms. Rodenkirch asked Ms. Kennedy if C.J. fell out of his chair, and Ms. Kennedy responded by stating, “With a little help.” Ms. Rodenkirch interpreted that statement as confirmation that Ms. Kennedy intentionally tipped C.J. out of his chair. At a different time on September 19, 2013, Ms. Rodenkirch was again about 10 to 14 feet from Ms. Kennedy when she witnessed Ms. Kennedy tip another student, N.B., out of his chair. As was the case with C.J., N.B. fell to the floor and was startled. Ms. Rodenkirch did not say anything to Ms. Kennedy after witnessing the incident with N.B. However, she was very upset about what she witnessed that day and reported what she saw to Ms. Kavanaugh after the children left school. After hearing Ms. Rodenkirch’s description of what happened in the class earlier that day, Ms. Kavanaugh called her supervisor, the regional superintendant, and requested direction. The regional superintendant, Kelly Coker-Daniels, instructed Ms. Kavanaugh to contact the Department of Children and Families and the local school district’s investigative branch. Both of the aforementioned entities conducted investigations. The local school district concluded that there was “substantial evidence to sustain the charges of exercise of poor judgment and inappropriate physical contact with students against Robin Kennedy for her role in these incidents.” (emphasis in original). Based on the investigation conducted by the Department of Children and Families, the Duval County Public School System: (a) issued a letter of reprimand to Ms. Kennedy; and (b) notified her that, pending approval by the school board, she would be suspended for 15 consecutive working days without pay. Because of the events described above, the parents of C.J. and N.B. requested that their children be transferred to another third-grade class. At least one other student transferred to a different class because she was worried that Ms. Kennedy would pull a chair out from under her. During the final hearing in this matter, Ms. Kennedy denied ever intentionally doing anything that could injure a student. During cross-examination, she responded affirmatively when asked if Ms. Rodenkirch was lying when she testified that she saw Ms. Kennedy tip C.J. and N.B. out of their chairs. However, the undersigned finds that Ms. Rodenkirch was a much more credible and persuasive witness than Ms. Kennedy. Therefore, the undersigned credits Ms. Rodenkirch’s testimony and finds that Ms. Kennedy did tip over the chairs of C.J. and N.B. on September 19, 2013, at Neptune Beach Elementary. Without a doubt, tipping students out of their chairs reduced Ms. Kennedy’s effectiveness as a teacher. That is underscored by the fact that students were transferred to other third-grade classes due to Ms. Kennedy’s actions. Ms. Kennedy’s conduct demonstrates that she failed to make reasonable efforts to protect her students from mental and/or physical harm. While it is very fortunate that none of the students in the class suffered any serious physical injuries, that might not have been the case if a student had hit his or her head on a hard object after being tipped out of his or her chair. Also, it is obvious that tipping a student out of his or her chair could expose that student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Accordingly, Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Kennedy violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j) and rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order suspending Robin Welch-Kennedy’s educator’s certificate for 12 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 2016.
