The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner, Gary P. Santoro (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Santoro”), undeservedly received a failed grade on the Construction Business and Finance Examination (“Examination”) for licensure as an air-conditioning contractor; whether any questions on the examination had more than one correct answer; whether the examination is unfair; whether there is transparency in the examination review process; and whether the examination grading process is arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Santoro took the Examination on November 16, 2018. Petitioner failed the Examination because he scored less than 70 percent correct. The Examination contains 125 questions, 120 of which are scored. The other five are not scored and are considered “pilot” questions for potential use on future examinations. In order to pass the Examination, a candidate must obtain a score of at least 70 percent. All scored questions on the Examination are weighted equally. As a result of failing to pass the Examination, Petitioner was notified of his results. All questions on the Examination had a single correct answer. Cynthia Woodley, Ph.D., employed by Professional Testing, Inc. (“PTI”), as the chief operating officer, is an expert in psychometrics and exam development. She holds a master’s degree in vocational education and a doctorate in curriculum and instruction with a specialization in measurement. Her current position calls for her to manage a number of licensure and certification exam programs. She explained at length how specific questions become part of a professional licensure exam. To develop questions, her company brings in any number of subject matter experts, people actually employed in the professions being tested, and they help develop subject matter questions for a particular exam. That was the process used for development of the Examination in this matter. Once the subject matter experts are trained in exam question writing techniques, they write questions, which are reviewed by other subject matter experts to determine whether the questions are fair and understandable enough to be answered by prospective test takers. Generally, five subject matter experts review each question before it makes its way onto an exam. PTI measures the “P value” of the questions by determining what percent of individuals taking a given exam answer a particular question correctly. For example, a P value of .90 means that 90 percent of the people taking the exam answered a particular question correctly. PTI looks for a wide range of P values in its exam questions. If a P value is too low, say .40, the company might reexamine that question to determine whether it should be removed from future exams since fewer than half the people taking the exam answered it correctly. The business and finance portion of the exam is given to all contractors, regardless of their specialty, with the exception of pool service contractors. Here, Petitioner, a HVAC contractor was administered the same Examination as plumbing contractors, electrical contractors, general contractors, etc. Each of the 120 questions on the exam in this case was equally weighted. There were also five pilot questions inserted into the exam, which did not count towards the total score, but were included as test questions for future exams. Petitioner provided hearsay documents regarding computer hacking and computer glitches associated with some exams administered around the United States. However, he did not connect the articles submitted into evidence to the exam administered in this case or any exam administered by the Department in Florida. Dr. Woodley was familiar with the allegations of computer glitches in testing, but testified that the problems were with K-12 testing in schools, not with professional licensure exams, such as administered by the Department. Therefore, since the hearsay evidence was not linked to the exam at issue or similar professional licensure exams given in Florida, it is entitled to no weight in arriving at the decision in this case. Question BF 1290 has a single correct answer, which is answer “C.” Petitioner selected answer “B.” Petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the answer he selected was correct. Question BF 0473 has a single correct answer, which is answer “A.” Petitioner selected answer “C.” This question asks for an answer of general applicability. Petitioner’s claim that his answer is equally correct is based on a narrow exception in law. Accordingly, Petitioner was not able to demonstrate that the answer he selected was correct. Question BF 0162 has a single correct answer, which is answer “B.” Petitioner selected answer “C.” Petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the answer he selected was correct. Question BF 1691 has a single correct answer, which is answer “C.” Petitioner selected answer “D.” Petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the answer he selected was correct. Petitioner was unable to submit sufficient evidence to show that the Examination is unfair, that there is insufficient transparency in the examination review process, or that the examination grading process is arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, he cannot prevail in his challenge to the Examination. Petitioner testified that he took and passed the HVAC contractors special license examination on his first attempt. He has taken the Examination on numerous occasions and is yet to be successful. He testified he studied hard for every administration of the exam, but just cannot reach the finish line successfully. While that is unfortunate, the evidence does not support that his failure to succeed on the Examination is the fault of the exam itself or of the Department either in its contracting to have the exam created or in the administration of the exam. From the way he conducted himself at hearing, Petitioner appears to be an intelligent, diligent, and successful individual in his HVAC business. For some unknown reason he has been unable to successfully complete the Examination. His persistence in retaking the Examination multiple times is admirable and should ultimately pay off with his successful passage of the Examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order upholding the Department’s Amended Grade Report finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing score on the Construction Business and Finance Examination, which he took on November 16, 2018. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 23rd day of August, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas G. Thomas, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Gary Peter Santoro Hometown Air & Services 8229 Blaikie Court Sarasota, Florida 34240-8323 (eServed) Ray Treadwell, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Daniel Biggins, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Halsey Beshears, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact On May 23, 1975, the Petitioners herein took the general contractors licensing exam in Miami, Florida. Petitioners failed to achieve a passing score on said examination and thereafter several reviews of the examination questions and answers resulted. The exam in question was administered to approximately 659 examinees. The test was made up of 100 questions and the examinees were allotted 4 hours to complete the exam. The examinees were instructed in the examination booklet to answer as many questions as possible within the time limit and to always select the best possible answer out of the listed choices. The examinees were furnished a list of reference materials by Respondent and they were advised that the exam questions would come from some 18 odd reference books supplied on the reference lists. Petitioner Dennis Milch took the general contractor's examination administered on May 23, 1975. 2/ In preparation of the exam he took a prep course given by Cole Construction and began his preparation approximately two months prior to the exam. He received a score of 67.5 on the exam. He earned a degree from the University of South Florida and took advance construction courses at FIU where he earned a degree in marketing. His work experience consisted of serving as an apprentice carpenter for Burke Construction Company in Miami for approximately two months and as a contractor to build residential homes in Houston Texas. Milch voiced his opinion that the exam questions failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of being "objective" within the meaning of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Joseph Cole, the founder of Cole Construction College in 1949, testified that he had approximately 30 years experience in teaching construction, architectural and engineering courses. He had conducted various seminars for students and received a B.S. Degree from the University of Miami. He received a B.S. Degree in biochemistry and civil engineering from the University of Pittsburgh and conducted seminars at the University of Florida in Math, Physics and Engineering. He also conducted seminars at the Markowitz Engineering School. He was licensed in 1947 in Coral Gables, Miami Beach, and in Miami where he has built approximately 2,000 single-family homes, high-rise buildings and apartments. He aired his opinion that Milch missed approximately 36 questions of which approximately 24 were what he regarded as "impossible" questions. He expressed his awareness that during the morning sessions two questions were voided and credits were given to all examinees having a point value of 1 point each. Two questions were also voided from the afternoon session. Thomas H. Hebert, an associate of the testing agency which compiled the exam for the Board, i.e., Bryon, Harlow, Schaefer, Reed and Associates, explained the procedure for compiling the tests for the Board (Respondent). He stated that data is taken from Board references and an exam format is established. Examinees are tested on plan reading and estimating using standard plans for takeoff and specification requirements. The test is first administered to contractors and others who had previously passed the exam. This is done to test time limits, etc., and grading procedures. By so doing, he testified that it is possible to correct deficiencies in the exam. After the examination is compiled and is administered to the agency employees and other contractors who have passed the exam, an item analysis is compiled and computerized. There are five possible answers for each question. The exam is divided into three segments, i.e., the upper 27 percent, the mid 46 percent, and the lower 27 percent. After the tests results are in, the weighting on various questions are checked to see if large numbers of examinees "jump" one question and further to see if questions are ambiguous. If found to be or that there are two correct answers for a given question, credit is given for both answers. Thereafter, a discrimination index is compiled based on the lower and upper 27 percent. These papers are scrutinized and if there is a discrepancy in excess of .1 to .8 percent, the question is examined and a solution is derived at based on results gathered from the scrutiny. He testified further that if an exam paper is mutilated or is otherwise difficult to machine score, it is hand graded. All exam papers in which the score ranged from 0 to 30 are hand graded as are those where the score ranges between 60 to 70. Of those questions where there is no correct answer, the question is deleted and a new base is established. For example, if a question is deemed faulty, each question has a weight of 1.1 one hundredths of a point. If they have three correct answers, points are given for all three answers. It was further brought out during his testimony that it was not necessary for a contractor to pass the certification examination in order to practice contracting in Florida. Evidence reveals that there are two kinds of licenses issued by the Board, i.e., registration and certification. The registration process only requires compliance with local requirements and the filing of a form with the Board, which may be the passing of a local competency exam or simply obtaining a local occupational license. The Certification method is optional and if the contractor passes the certification examination, it is unnecessary for him to take any local examinations. After going over various questions missed by Petitioner Dennis Milch, Petitioners argue that the scope of the Board Certification Examination included questions affecting the business of contracting as well as the technical aspects of for example how to nail two boards together to make a safe structure. Florida Statutes Chapter 468.106(2)(a) provides for an examination covering knowledge of basic principles of contracting and construction. Chapter 468.101 declares the purpose of Chapter 468 and states in pertinent part that "any person desiring to obtain a certificate to engage in the business shall be required to establish his competency and qualifications." Hence, the legislature has covered the business of contracting as well as the theory of construction. This serves the purpose of Chapter 468 by making it safer for owners to contract with the contractors and to have assurances that no liens will be placed on their property by subcontractors, that the owners are safe from suit from work that was done on the job, that the payments made on the construction will not be diverted and that the contractor understands his obligations. This requires general knowledge of the mechanics lien law, basic contract law and workers compensation law, all of which were tested by the subject examination. Respecting Petitioners' argument that they were denied certain constitutional guarantees when they were instructed by Respondent to select the best possible answer but that after the test was administered and Respondent determined that many questions had no best choice, the Board failed to delete such questions from the exam, it was noted that after the Respondent discovered that several test questions were deemed acceptable but that the answers offered did not meet the tests of selecting the best possible answer, adjustments were made. In other words, there was no single best possible answer for approximately four questions. Rather than deleting the entire question, Respondent permitted those examinees who selected either the answer originally preferred by the Board or one of the later adopted alternate answers to achieve full credit for such questions and answers. The statute (Chapter 468, F.S.) mandates that the examination be an "objective" written examination. The criteria of objectivity is not met where the examining body is granted the discretion to accept alternate answers to a given question. A "best" answer is something different from an acceptable answer. To give the Board discretion to accept alternate answers would authorize a substitution of standards which is' not permitted by Chapter 468, F.S. Once subjectivity comes into play, Respondent becomes vested with almost unbridled discretion in deciding who shall become a certified general contractor. This was prohibited by the legislature by requiring objectivity in setting a uniform minimum test grade. As relates to Petitioner Milch, it was noted that a subsequent review of his exam resulted in his being awarded a half credit for his answer to question number 39 and the Board determined that after review answers B and A were both correct. The net result of this was that his overall score was 68. A review of the court cases revealed that Florida courts have not been involved in the minute details of how examination grades or points are awarded. See the cases of State ex rel. Topp v. Board of Electrical Examiners, 101 So.2d 583 (Fla. App. 1st 1968), and State ex real. Lane v. Dade County 258 So.2d (347 Fla. App. 3rd, 1972). These cases generally show that unless there is a clear abuse of discretion, courts shall not substitute their judgment for the agencies as to how examinations are graded. Petitioners also submit that once regrading had commenced, the Board should have deleted all questions with wrong answers or more than one equally acceptable answer, distributed the weight of the deleted questions in proportionate fashion of the remaining questions and considered passing to be 70 percent of the total points available, rather than 70 cumulative points. During the hearing, Petitioners failed to show how they were injured by the difference in the award of the points for questions deleted. A wrong without damage does not constitute a good cause of action. Based on the evidence presented it appears that the Petitioners are treated the same as all other examinees. Since the Petitioners have failed to establish that if the assignment of points were different, they would have passed the examination, this argument is moot. Petitioners also alleges that they were denied certain constitutional protections by Respondent's failure to adopt and promulgate uniform rules and regulations concerning preparation, administration and review of licensing examinations. Florida Statutes, Chapter 468, requires Respondent to conduct its affairs pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 120. The Administrative Procedure Acts set out specific procedures to be followed by State agencies in adopting, promulgating and enforcing rules. Statutory authority governing the granting of a license should be strictly followed. In this case, there is no evidence of the existence of any unlawful rule or regulation adopted by Respondent to govern any of the variety of issues concerning the licensing of general contractors. Petitioners also submit that the Board should be required to promulgate and enforce rules concerning examinations and appeals or results thereof and cite the reasons for the actions it takes prior to its review of the examination. The Board is not required to adopt rules and regulations in every area in which it is authorized to act by statute. Where the statute is clear, there is no requirement or reason by the Board to adopt rules. Here, the Board provided the applicants with a chance to examine the questions, their papers, grades and to complain if they wished about the questions either individually or at board meetings with the possibility that the fairness of the questions could be resolved quickly and informally and if necessary, as in this case, without the full ponoply of an administrative hearing. By so doing, the Board was clearly following its statutory duty to provide the applicants with a chance to see their examination papers and grades. (F.S. Chapter 466.110). Based on the above, it is concluded that Respondent compiled the May 23, 1975 examination based on objective standards. When the Board determined that certain questions were defective either because there was more than one answer or for other reasons, the Board reviewed said questions and credited those examinees who failed to properly answer the question. By so doing, Petitioners were treated the same as all examinees who took the exam. Based on the record evidence, it further appears that all the questions meet the statutory tests of being objective and the Board's determination that a cumulative score of 70 percent is necessary to successfully obtain a certification, was not shown by any competent or substantial evidence to be an abuse of discretion. It is therefore recommended that the agency's action be sustained and that the petition filed herein be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is therefore recommended that the agency's actions be affirmed and the petition filed herein be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 30, 1998, 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 October 30, 1998, as part of his 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 47 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested the NCEES to rescore his solutions to Problems 124, 125, and 222 on the Examination. At the time he made this request, Petitioner was aware that rescoring could result in the candidate's score being lowered (although he believed that, in his case, the outcome would be a higher, not a lower, score). Petitioner was wrong. The rescoring he requested resulted in his receiving a raw score of 43 (or a converted score of 65, 5 points less than he needed to pass the Examination). After being notified of the outcome of the rescoring, Petitioner requested the Florida Board of Professional Engineers to grant him a "formal administrative hearing" on the matter. Petitioner's request was granted. At hearing, Petitioner advised that he was challenging only the grading of his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Examination, and that he was not pursuing his challenge to the score he had received for his solution to Problem 125. Problems 124 and 222 were worth ten (raw) points each. Problem 124 contained four subparts (or requirements). Petitioner received two (raw) points for his solution to Problem 124. Rescoring did not result in any change to this score. Due to mathematical errors that he made, Petitioner did not solve any of the subparts of Problem 124 correctly. Accordingly, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest (raw) score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a two, which is the score he received. Problem 222 contained five subparts (or requirements). Petitioner originally received a (raw) score of six for his solution to Problem 222. Upon rescoring, his (raw) score was reduced to two. In attempting to solve Problem 222, Petitioner overestimated the lateral earth pressure due to his misunderstanding of the term "equivalent fluid pressure" used in the problem. In addition, in his solution to subpart (a), he did not properly specify the appropriate bar size and spacing. Giving Petitioner a (raw) score of two for his solution to Problem 222 was consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem.
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 he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 30, 1998, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1999, 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 4th day of October, 1999.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner should be given a passing grade on the April, 1987, professional engineering examination. At the hearing the specific issues in dispute were narrowed to whether the Petitioner should be given a higher grade on each of three questions on the examination. At the hearing the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of two other witnesses. He also offered several documentary exhibits into evidence. The Respondent offered the testimony of one witness and also offered several exhibits. Subsequent to the hearing a transcript of the hearing was filed with the Hearing Officer and the parties were given a reasonable time thereafter within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed post-hearing submissions containing proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations. The parties' proposals have been given careful consideration in the preparation of this recommended order. All findings of fact proposed by all parties are addressed in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The April, 1987, professional engineering examination required an applicant to work four problems in the morning session and four problems in the afternoon session, for a total of eight problems. In order to pass the examination, the applicant had to achieve an average score of six points for all eight problems, or a raw score of forty-eight points. Mr. Schmidt's examination was given a total score of forty points, comprised of scores as follows: 10, 8, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, and 1. Mr. Schmidt, therefore, needs eight additional raw points in order to receive a passing grade on the examination. An additional requirement is that in order to receive a passing grade on the examination, the applicant must score six points or more on at least five of the eight questions. Mr. Schmidt is challenging three questions on the exam, questions 114, 411 and 418. On question 114, Mr. Schmidt was given a score of four. On question 411, Mr. Schmidt was given a score of five. On question 418, Mr. Schmidt was given a score of three. At the commencement of the hearing, the Respondent stipulated that Mr. Schmidt's score of question 418 should be increased to five. The Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) is a device utilized to standardize graders so that a person grading a specific problem for various different candidates would consistently apply the same score to the same type of deficiency throughout the scoring process. There was an individualized Item Specific Scoring Plan for each problem given on the subject examination. Each of the Item Specific Scoring Plans contains objective criteria for assigning from 0 to 10 points to a candidate's answer to each question. There is no evidence that the Item Specific Scoring Plans are defective or arbitrary and capricious. The percentage of successful candidates on the chemical engineering examination has been rather low on recent examinations. Approximately 15% passed the April, 1986, exam. Only 2.9% passed the October, 1986, exam, and 25% passed the April, 1987, exam. During that same period of time the success rate was generally (but not always) higher for candidates for licensure in other fields of engineering. The grade of four given to Mr. Schmidt's response to question number 114 is consistent with the individualized Item Specific Scoring Plan for that question. The grade of five given to Mr. Schmidt's response to question number 411 is consistent with the individualized Item Specific Scoring Plan for that question. The grade of three given to Mr. Schmidt's response to question number 418 is not consistent with the individualized Item Specific Scoring Plan for that question. The parties have stipulated that Mr. Schmidt's grade on question number 418 should be at least five. The evidence is insufficient to show that Mr. Schmidt is entitled to a higher grade than five on question number 418.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Board of Professional Engineers issue a final order to the following effect: Increasing Petitioner's score on question 418 from three to five, leaving Petitioner's other scores unchanged, and assigning to Petitioner a final grade of forty-two. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 11th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4175 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Petitioner's proposed findings regarding problem number 114 are essentially correct summaries of the testimony as far as they go. Nevertheless, most of them have been omitted as unnecessary subordinate details, particularly in view of the further testimony of Dr. O'Connell to the effect that he had no quarrel with the ISSP for this question and to the testimony of both Dr. O'Connell and Dr. Hanley to the effect that the grade given to Petitioner on this question is consistent with the ISSP. Petitioner's proposed findings regarding problem number 411 have for the most part been rejected as irrelevant on the basis of testimony by both Dr. O'Connell and Dr. Hanley to the effect that the ISSP required evidence of a trial and error solution and that such a solution is not shown in the Petitioner's answer. Petitioner's proposed findings regarding problem number 418 are essentially correct summaries of the testimony as far as they go. Nevertheless, most of them have been omitted as unnecessary subordinate details, in view of additional evidence to the effect that the Petitioner's boxed answer to this question was not a reasonable answer. With regard to the penultimate paragraph of the Petitioner's proposed findings, the first two sentences are essentially correct, but also irrelevant, because the burden of proof is on the Petitioner rather than on `the Respondent. With regard to the remainder of the penultimate paragraph, I have made findings regarding the success rate of chemical engineers, but find that evidence, standing along, insufficient to establish any impropriety in the examination. The final paragraph of the Petitioner's proposed findings is more in the nature of argument than proposed facts. It may well be that the Petitioner received less prehearing information from the Respondent than he was entitled to receive, but those are matters which should be raised before rather than after the hearing, and are matters which are waived if not timely asserted. Findings proposed by Respondent: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Omitted as unnecessary subordinate details. Paragraph 4: Omitted as unnecessary subordinate details. Paragraph 5: The essence of this paragraph has been accepted, but most details have been omitted an unnecessary. Paragraph 6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Accepted. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Accepted. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Accepted. Paragraph 12: Omitted as unnecessary subordinate details. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Daniel B. Schmidt 2209 Northeast 15th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32601 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 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 Allen R. Smith, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to Questions 132 and 294 of the Principles & Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on April 23, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (the NCEES).
Findings Of Fact On April 23, 1999, Solorzono sat for the Principles and Practice Engineering Examination in electrical engineering. This national examination is developed, controlled, and administered by the NCEES. The examination candidates receive raw scores, which result in a converted score for the final examination score. A minimum converted score of 70 is required to pass the examination. A raw score of 48 equates to a converted score of 70. Solorzano received a raw score of 45, resulting in a converted score of 67. If a candidate is not satisfied with his examination score, he may request the NCEES to review and rescore his examination answers. Solorzano formally requested the NCEES to rescore his examination. Upon rescoring, the NCEES determined that Solozano's raw score should be decreased to 43. The examination questions at issue in this proceeding are Questions 132 and 294. Solorzano received a raw score of 4 on Question 132 and a raw score of 4 on Question 294. When the NCEES rescored the examination, it did not award any additional points for Question 132 and deducted two points for Question 294. The NCEES develops an item-specific scoring plan (ISSP) for each examination question. Question 132 was scored by the NCEES according to the ISSP for that question. Question 132 contains three subparts, which require the examinee to address five discrete requirements: The problem solution as a three-phase problem, (2) The total MW, MVAR, and MVA of the load without the capacitor bank, (3) The size of the capacitor bank in kVAR to make the power factor equal to 0.9 lagging, (4) The complex power diagrams with and without the capacitor bank (MW same for both diagrams and correct phasor directions for both diagrams), (5) The MVA load with the capacitor bank connected. Solozano correctly identified the problem as a three- phase power problem and satisfied the first requirement. Solozano incorrectly calculated the MW, MVAR, and MVA, the real power, the imaginary power, and complex power for the load on the transformer without the capacitor bank. He failed to apply the correct concepts for "Y" transformer as given in the problem statement and based his solution on the concepts for "Delta" transformer. Solorzano failed to satisfy the second requirement. Even though Solorzano's calculations carried through his error from the second requirement, he showed understanding of correcting the power factor and performed a correct analysis to size the capacitor bank. Solorzano satisfied the third requirement. Solorzano made a significant conceptual error by showing an incorrect vector direction for the calculated Q value. He showed a negative polarity for the Q component when it should have been positive. Solorzano failed to satisfy the fourth requirement. In calculating the real complex power load on the transformer, with the capacitor bank connected, Solorzano used an incorrect concept, simply subtracting the load with the capacitor bank from the transformer's rating. He failed to satisfy the fifth requirement. Having satisfied only two of the five requirements for Question 132, Solorzano is entitled to a raw score of 4 for Question 132. Question 294 requires the examinee to address the following five requirements: Correct truth table for 0-9 with at most one error. Correct truth table for 10-15. Map or table showing correct values for w,0,1 entries. Correct assignment for w,0,1 entries to circuit with at most 1 error and no x,y,z entries. Correct polarity for truth table and circuit for w,0,1 (requires correct circuit values). Solorzano constructed a truth table for 0-9 with one mistake for polarity. He fulfilled the first requirement. Solorzano failed to complete the truth table for 10-15, arguing that the 10-15 segments were not used; therefore, it was not necessary to construct a truth table. The second requirement calls for the construction of a truth table for 10-15. It is necessary for a complete truth table to ensure that the output for segment E is not affected by an input beyond 9. He failed to meet the second requirement. Solorzano made a conceptual error by reversing the most significant bit and least significant bit, resulting in his failure to map a table showing correct values for judging zero and one. He failed to satisfy the third requirement. In his development of the fourth requirement, Solorzano carried through an earlier error. However, he correctly utilized the incorrect information, satisfying the fourth requirement. Requirement five called for the correct circuit values. Because Solorzano had used the incorrect polarity throughout his solution, he failed to meet the fifth requirement. Solorzano satisfied two of the five requirements for Question 294; thus, he is entitled to a raw score of 45. Questions 132 and 294, with their problem statements, provide all the necessary information necessary for an examinee to solve the problems. The questions are properly designed to test an examinee's competence in electrical engineering. Solorzano is entitled to a raw score of 45, equating to a converted score of 67.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Solorzano is entitled to a converted score of 67 on the electrical engineering examination given on April 23, 1999, and has failed the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 6th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Alejandro Solorzano 6675 Southwest 103 Court Miami, Florida 33173 William H. Hollimon, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers 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 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to Questions 23 and 27 of the Contract Administration section of the General Contractor licensure examination administered in July 1996, and, if so, whether the additional credit would give him a passing grade. Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to Questions 11, 23, and 35 of the Contract Administration section of the General Contractor licensure examination administered in April 1997 and, if so, whether the additional credit would give him a passing grade.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the Contract Administration section of the General Contractor’s licensure examination in July 1996 and in April 1997. Between the two exams, Petitioner passed all sections of the examination except the Contract Administration section. Petitioner’s score on the Contract Administration section of the July 1996 examination, as graded by Respondent’s Bureau of Testing, was 65. His score on the Contract Administration section of the April 1997 examination was 67.5. For both examinations, there were 40 questions on the Contract Administration section. A candidate had to achieve a score of 70 to pass that section of the examination. Because each question was equally weighted, a candidate would have to correctly answer 28 questions to earn the passing score. All questions challenged by Petitioner were multiple- choice questions where the candidate was instructed to give the best answer from four possible choices. Prior to the examinations, the candidates were given a list of approved reference materials. The candidates were permitted to refer to those reference materials while taking the examinations. Respondent’s score of 65 on the July 1996 examination was based on the Bureau of Testing’s determination that Petitioner correctly answered 26 of the 40 questions. To earn a passing grade on the Contract Administration section of the July 1996 examination, Petitioner would have to receive credit for correctly answering two additional questions. His score of 67.5 on the April 1997 was based on the determination that he correctly answered 27 of the 40 questions. To earn a passing grade on the Contract Administration section of the April 1997 examination, Petitioner would have to receive credit for correctly answering one additional question. QUESTION 23 OF THE JULY 1996 EXAM The correct answer for Question 23 of the July examination is choice “D.” Of the four possible responses, choice “D” is the best answer to the question. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “A.” Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the best answer. The answer selected by Petitioner would not be the most accurate and cost-effective because the methodology he selected would not detect errors made by the first person performing the computations. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 23 of the July 1996 exam. QUESTION 27 OF THE JULY 1996 EXAM The correct answer for Question 27 of the July examination is choice “C.” This correct answer is supported by reference materials made available to all candidates. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “B.” Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the correct answer to the question. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 27 of the July 1996 exam. QUESTION 11 OF THE APRIL 1997 EXAM The correct answer for Question 11 of the April 1997 examination is choice “C.” This correct answer is supported by reference materials made available to all candidates. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “D.” Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the correct answer to the question. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 11 of the April 1997 exam. QUESTION 23 OF THE APRIL 1997 EXAM The best answer for Question 23 of the April 1997 examination is choice “C.” This correct answer is supported by reference materials made available to all candidates. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “A.” While there is some support in the reference material for Petitioner's answer, the greater weight of the evidence established that his choice was not the best answer. Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the best answer to the question. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 23 of the April 1997 exam. QUESTION 35 OF THE APRIL 1997 EXAM The correct answer for Question 11 of the April 1997 examination is choice “C.” This correct answer is supported by reference materials made available to all candidates. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “D.” Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the correct answer to the question. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 11 of the April 1997 exam.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that dismisses the challenges brought by Petitioner to Questions 23 and 27 on the July 1996 exam and to Questions 11, 23, and 35 of the April 1997 exam. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Kenneth Marshall 624 Southwest 11th Court Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 John Preston Seiler, Esquire 2900 East Oakland Park Boulevard, No. 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded additional credit for his answer to question number 290, and thereby be given a passing grade on the Professional Engineer examination administered on October 25, 1996, in Orlando.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers (Board) was the state agency responsible for the examination and licensing of professional engineers in Florida. With the cooperation and assistance of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), the Board conducts periodic examinations to test the qualifications of candidates for certification as professional engineers in this state. Such an examination was conducted in Orlando, Florida on October 25, 1996. Petitioner was a candidate at that examination. A minimum score for passing was 70. Petitioner received an overall score of 69. One of the questions posed to the candidates at that examination was question number 290, dealing with the design of a control system, which required the candidate to determine values for two parameters in such a fashion that the closed loop specifications stated as, "with K =20 the unit step response be a damped oscillation with a 10% overshoot and with a damped natural frequency of 15 rad/s" were met. In the answer to this question, the engineer has to arrive at parameters to give the desired step response within the stated percentages. According to Dr. Antonio Arroyo, an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Florida and an expert in electrical engineering, this subject matter is taught in a standard undergraduate controls course which is required in engineering schools nation-wide. The question in issue is a classic controls problem. The candidate is to reduce the diagram displayed in the examination question and give a closed loop description. Given that, the solution proceeds by taking the percentage of error and using it to back- track and arrive at the requested parameters, step by step. The examination is an open book examination. Because of the many formulae used in engineering, the candidate is permitted to use printed resources to assist in the solving of the problems. This formula involved in this problem is standard. Only the parameters cited in the test problem are different. In his answer to the question Petitioner cited to the page in his reference material where the solution is to be found, and he used the appropriate formula. In doing so, he could take the numbers presented in the problem and apply them to the standard problem solution contained in the reference book he had with him. It is a "plug and chug" situation wherein the candidate inserts the problem numbers into the given formula and makes the calculations. In order to take advantage of this opportunity, however, the candidate must decide how to use the information given. In this case, the problem involved a damped frequency of 15 hz and the candidate was required to calculate an undamped frequency. The Petitioner did not show that calculation in his solution, and it appears to Dr. Arroyo he missed the fact of the difference between the two frequencies. In Petitioner's solution, he listed what he saw as the data given, and though at no place did the problem show "Omega d", Petitioner put down "Omega d" but used "Omega n". In the expert opinion of Dr. Arroyo, an engineer should, at least, check his calculations. Examiners will give credit to a candidate if the candidate shows the appropriate knowledge of the concepts involved in the problem. In the instant case, Petitioner's answer to question 290 far exceeded the allowable 10% overshoot. His answer for "a" was 0.895, whereas the correct answer was 1.099. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference was .110, Petitioner’s overshoot was .204. His answer for "b" was 11.25, whereas the correct answer was 17.3. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference here was 1.73, Petitioner’s overshoot was 6.05. To Dr. Arroyo, this shows a concept error rather than a calculation error In substance, Petitioner utilized the correct formulae, but used incorrect data, and the use of the wrong data is sufficient to indicate his ignorance of the appropriate concepts. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, who did not see the problem utilized in the examination and relied on information provided by Petitioner, concluded that Petitioner’s margin of error was within the 10% limitation. Here, notwithstanding the opinion to the contrary of Dr. Garrett, Petitioner's solution missed the authorized overshoot by a significant amount, far more than the allowable 10%. He should have known something was wrong when this happened and should have looked to see what he did wrong. In the opinion of Dr. Arroyo, the Petitioner did not adequately evaluate the problem consistent with acceptable engineering standards since the final product of his calculations did not meet the specifications of the problem. This is the purpose behind the professional certification process, and Petitioner should have recognized that his answer did not meet the required specifications. Petitioner received a score of six out of a possible ten for his solution to question 290. Dr. Arroyo is satisfied that the scoring plan of the NCEES for this problem is fair and he supports it. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, a professional engineer and long-time professor of electrical engineering at the University of South Florida, disagrees. In his evaluation of the problem and the grading process used here, Dr. Garrett notes that problem 290 consisted of five parts, for each of which two points could be awarded. Petitioner correctly answered the first three parts and received a grade of six points. He missed part four, and part five was to use the results of parts three and four, with the proper equations, to determine the two answers required. Since Petitioner used the proper equations to figure his answer to part five, even though he did not get a correct answer to part four, which resulted in his numeric answer to part five being incorrect, Dr. Garrett is of the opinion that he should have received an additional two points for applying the proper formula in part five. Review of the scoring plan developed for this problem indicates that Petitioner met all the qualifications for award of six points, but he did not recognize the relationship of damped as opposed to undamped. He used incorrect data to arrive at "a" and "b" in that he did not identify the relationship between natural frequency and damped frequency. This is a basic problem of control systems which an undergraduate should be able to solve correctly. It is basic electrical engineering knowledge and not beyond that expected of an electrical engineer with a bachelor's degree in the field. Had Petitioner utilized the formula he used with the proper data, he would have been awarded credit for a correct answer even if his calculations were incorrect. Here, however, while Petitioner utilized the correct formula, he applied it to incorrect data, and it is this use of incorrect data which makes an award of a higher score inappropriate. The professional engineers’ examination is designed to test the individual's familiarity with engineering concepts and his ability to cast the problem into those concepts to solve the problem. Petitioner contends that his understanding of the concepts involved was correct and, therefore, even though he used the wrong figures, he should received credit for a correct answer or, at most, only 2 rather than 4 points should have been deducted. Though Petitioner utilized the correct formula for his solution to question 290, he applied the wrong values in the use of the formula. This indicates a lack of understanding of the concepts involved, and even though Petitioner used the proper formula, that formula came from the book he was permitted to use for the examination. He cannot be given full credit for copying the formula from the book. Had he used the correct values in his solution to the problem, he would have been given appropriate credit even if his calculations were wrong. After being notified of his unsuccessful exam results, Petitioner requested that his answer to question number 290 be resubmitted to NCEES for re-scoring, and this was done. By memorandum in response, dated July 10, 1997, the NCEES scorer concluded: The error in using undamped natural frequency for damped natural frequency in the examinee's solution is a major error. Whether the examinee did not recognize the function was in fact the undamped natural frequency, as given in the problem statement, or whether it was an oversight, it is still a major error since the outcome is significantly affected. The scorer, whose knowledge of the identity of the candidate was limited to a number only, recommended a score of "six" for Petitioner answer to this problem. There was no change from the initial scoring.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order denying Petitioner additional credit for his answer to question number 290 on the principles and practice portion of the electrical engineering examination administered for the Board of Professional Engineers on October 25 and 26, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bahman Behzadi Post Office Box 290931 Tampa, Florida 33687 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact This case arose upon notification to the Petitioner, Pamela Y. Dennis, that she had received a failing grade on the Cosmetology Instructors Examination. Specifically, she received 70 percent on the examination and needed a 75 to pass. She chose to contest this action by the agency in according her a failing score, by contesting her grade on questions 2, 5, 7, 12, 16 and 17 on the lecture portion of that examination. She ultimately requested and received a formal proceeding before this Hearing Officer. The Petitioner testified on her own behalf. In essence, the testimony consisted of her contention that as to the contested questions, some of the examiners gave her scores of "yes", meaning that she had answered correctly, while others gave her scores of "no" and others gave her partial credit. Her complaint is, in essence, that if one examiner gave her a "yes" result on a question, why was that grade not accepted in order to give her full credit for the question. She also complained that the comments the examiners gave, when they accorded a "no" score or a partial score for a particular question, are differing in nature and some examiners, as to the same question, made no comment at all. She contends that the examiners' scorings were inconsistent with each other on each of the questions at issue and that therefore, if any examiner gave her a "yes" answer, then she should have received full credit for the answer to that question. In fact, however, as established by Dr. Eunice Loewe, Ph.D., the examination developer, the Petitioner was accorded credit for all yes or "y" grades given her by the examiners on the questions at issue, as well as all "p", or partial credit, scores given her. She only received no credit at all on a given question if none of the examiners gave her a partial or a "yes" score on that question. In other words, the scoring was not done by grading according to what the majority of examiners gave her for a particular question. If that had been done, she would actually have lost points below that which she actually scored, according to Dr. Loewe, because by a "majority vote" method of scoring, a majority of examiners giving her a "no" grade on a given question, even when some examiners had graded her with a "yes", would prevent her from getting any credit at all for that question. That was not done in the grading, according to Dr. Loewe, rather, the Petitioner was accorded credit for all partial or "yes" answers. The examiners are currently teachers of the same subject matter. They are required to make comment on a candidate's response to a particular question or a portion of the examination when they give her a "partial" or a "no" grade on that question. It is not required that all comments be the same, because this is a demonstration type examination where the grading to a large extent must, by necessity, be somewhat subjective. Because this is a physical demonstration type of examination, the agency, in an attempt to be totally fair with candidates, required the examiners to make these comments if they were not going to give her a "yes" grade on a particular question or area of classroom presentation. In summary, Dr. Loewe established that the Petitioner was a "borderline candidate" who had close to a passing score and upon whose grading the examiners were split as to the questions involved. The point is that if the grades on the questions involved had been by a majority vote of the examiners with no credit being given at all for any question if the majority of examiners did not vote "yes", the Petitioner would have received a lower score. The fact that the examiners were split on these questions did not in itself penalize the Petitioner because she was given credit for partial or "yes" grades by the examiners. There was no showing that the individual examiner's grades of "no", "yes" or "p" (for partial) on any of the questions at issue were incorrect grades. In fact, a review of the score sheets of the various examiners, in evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, reveals that although some do not make comment on some questions, where others do make comment, and some comments are different, the majority of the examiners grading "no" or "partial" made similar comments about the same question. There was simply no showing by the Petitioner that the method of administration of this examination was unfair, nor that the content of the questions was unfair or biased. It was not demonstrated that the examiners had unfairly scored the lecture demonstration portion of the examination. Indeed, the Petitioner was a borderline candidate and came close to passing the examination. She had a complete lesson plan as required and presented a fairly thorough lecture. She did not follow the lesson plan closely enough, however, according to a number of the examiners. They indicated by their comments that she seemed to "jump around" and other comments indicated that she relied too heavily on her notes and seemed to read from notes to a great extent in making her lecture presentation. These example comments and others revealed by the testimony of record and the score sheet exhibits reveal that the examiners did indeed give careful consideration to her presentation and they have not been shown to have graded unfairly or in a biased manner.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent agency determining that the score accorded Pamela Y. Dennis on the Cosmetology Instructors examination was an accurate score and that her petition be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 20th day of September, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela Y. Dennis, pro se 2221 Dumfries Circle Jacksonville, Florida 32216 H. Reynolds Sampson Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for disposition in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the Principles and Practice of Engineering examination administered on October 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for licensure as a professional engineer in the State of Florida. Respondent is a nonprofit corporation created by the Florida Legislature to provide administrative, investigative and prosecutorial services to the Board of Professional Engineers pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes. On October 30, 1998, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice Engineering Examination in electrical engineering. This is a nation-wide examination developed, controlled, and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on this examination. For the electrical engineering discipline, a raw score of 47 results in a converted score of 69. A minimum converted score of 70 is required to pass this examination. A raw score of 48 results in a converted score of 70. Petitioner needs 1 raw score point to achieve a passing score on this examination. Petitioner initially challenged the scoring of multiple choice questions nos. 527 and 530. Petitioner had received a raw score of 0 on these two questions. Petitioner requested NCEES to rescore questions nos. 527 and 530, but after the rescoring NCEES determined that he was not entitled to any additional raw score points. Questions nos. 527 and 530 are each worth 1 raw score point. Petitioner's answer to question no. 527 represents the most practical, "real world" answer to this question, as conceded by Respondent's expert, and Petitioner is entitled to 1 raw score point for his answer. Although he made an articulate, reasonable explanation for his answer to question no. 530 and for his challenge to the text of the question, Petitioner has agreed to accept the 1 additional point he needed for a passing score and abandon the challenge to question no. 530 as moot.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Petitioner credit for his response to examination question no. 527 and adjusting his examination grade to reflect a passing score. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY 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 3rd day of August, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Alley 4827 Springwater Circle Melbourne, Florida 32940 William H. Hollimon, Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board 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 Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to enough points so as to be considered to have passed the October 31, 1997, Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination?
Findings Of Fact On October 31, 1997, Petitioner took the Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination. Petitioner received a score of 68 on the examination. A score of 70 is required to pass. A score of 70 is a converted raw score of 48. Petitioner's score of 68 is a converted raw score of 46. Therefore, Petitioner needs two raw-score points to achieve a passing score. Petitioner challenged the scoring of Questions 28, 62, 114, and 119. Petitioner's examination was returned to the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) to be re-scored. The re-score resulted in no additional points being added to Petitioner's score. No significant evidence was presented with regard to Questions 28 and 62, and Petitioner's expert agreed that they had been scored correctly with zero points awarded. Question 114 is an essay question. Petitioner received a raw score of 4 on this question, (40 percent of a possible 10 points). Question 119 is an essay question. Petitioner received a raw score of 2 on this question, (20 percent of a possible 10 points). Neither Petitioner's nor Respondent's expert was pleased with the scoring method established by NCEES, but both experts agreed that applicants are bound by the scoring plan established by whatever entity devised the test and scoring system, in this case NCEES. The NCEES scoring system is called the Solution and Scoring Plan. It contemplates that if an examinee's answer meets some criteria specified by NCEES for 4 points (but not all the criteria for 4 points) and also meets some criteria specified by NCEES for 2 points (but not all the criteria for 2 points), the examinee is to be awarded only 2 points, not 1 point or 3 points. Petitioner received a score of 4 on Question 114, a gas absorption problem. Petitioner got the correct answer but did not do much to justify the assumptions he made. He wrote his assumption in the body of his calculations instead of at the beginning, where he must have actually made the assumption in order to work the problem. According to Dr. Narayanan, Petitioner merely made an assumption of diluteness. Dr. Peters explained that Petitioner had assumed that the percent removal would be identical for the two cases contained in the problem. Petitioner had assumed that the percent removal of ammonia in condition one, which is 85 percent, is exactly the same as condition two. However, in Dr. Peters' view, there is no justification for that assumption. The Petitioner had calculated the new Yout based solely on the ratio of the two cases, without proving that the approach is valid. Therefore, although Dr. Narayanan would have scored Petitioner with 5 or 6 points, instead of 4 points on this problem, Dr. Peters' view was that achieving the correct answer from an incorrect procedure did not demonstrate more than 4 points on the established scoring system. Upon all the evidence, I find that Petitioner's answer to Question 114 meets the criteria set forth for a score of 4 under the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan. Accordingly, Petitioner was entitled only to a score of 4 for that problem. Petitioner received a score of only 2 points on Question 119. Overall, Petitioner selected the proper equations and demonstrated the solution procedure correctly with the correct mass balances, but the scoring plan required that for a score of 4 on Question 119, examinees had to at least attempt to sketch the heat release curve, which Petitioner did not do. Petitioner admitted that he did not even attempt to draw the curve because he ran out of time. More specifically, Part A of Question 119 required Petitioner to determine the temperature at which the flash cooler must be operated and the composition, in mole percent, of the liquid stream removed. Petitioner did not demonstrate the calculation for the mole fractions in the liquid phase composition. Instead, he calculated the vapor phase composition. Although there is no way he could calculate the correct temperature, which he did, without somehow calculating the liquid phase compositions coming out of the process, Petitioner still did not fulfill all of the requirements of Part A of Question 119, as that question was posed on the examination. Petitioner's expert, Dr. Narayanan, partially agreed with the official scoring of Question 119. However, he stated that Petitioner's failure to report the liquid phase compositions, rather than the gas phase compositions, was merely an oversight. Petitioner calculated something correctly that was not required, but he did not calculate at all one element which was required. More specifically, Part B of Question 119 required Petitioner to sketch the heat release curve. Petitioner determined enough raw data for plotting the curve, but did not plot the curve due to the time factor. Completing all requirements of each problem posed was part of the testing procedure. Petitioner made no reasonable attempt to sketch the heat release curve, and therefore, Petitioner did not get any part of Part B of Question 119 correct. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, I accept as persuasive the testimony of Respondent's expert, Dr. Peters, that the scorer applied the NCEES scoring plan correctly, without a subjective component, and that Petitioner is not entitled to any more points on the October 31, 1997, Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination than those which were originally awarded to him.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order confirming Petitioner's score of 46 on the October 31, 1997, Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 31st day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Ashok Raichoudhury 9917 Northwest 6th Court Plantation, Florida 33324 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
