Findings Of Fact L.B. Thanki received a degree in Civil Engineering at the University of Durham at Kings College, Newcastle Upon Tyne in the United Kingdom in 1956. Petitioner received a batchelor of law degree from Sardar Patel University (India) in 1967. This degree is the equivalent of two years study in law. The degree obtained from the University of Durham is not the equivalent of the degree received from an ABET approved university in the United States because it lacks 16 credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. Petitioner presented no evidence that his degree from the University of Durham or the curriculum he completed at any other university included the missing 16 hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. Petitioner presented a certificate (which was not offered into evidence) that he had completed a course in computer services meeting the board's evidentiary requirements of computer skills.
Recommendation Based on foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as an engineering intern. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. N. AYERS 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 10th day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: B. Thanki 1106 East Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Acting Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Jack L. McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's response to the questions on the October 1990 Florida Professional Engineers Examination were sufficient to allow him to receive a passing grade. Whether problems in Petitioner's examination occurred which were due to the Department's change in the list of reference materials allowed into the examination room.
Findings Of Fact In order to obtain licensure as a Professional Engineer in Florida, Petitioner is required to successfully complete the licensure examination. Petitioner sat for the October 1990 National Engineering Licensure Exam. He received an overall score of 69.1%. A passing score for the examination was 70.0%. The Professional Engineer Candidate Information Booklet advised candidates that the reference materials taken into the examination room had to be formally bound, copyrighted and published. The only exception to this rule was the Standard Building Code, which is contained in a three-ring binder. On the first day of the examination, Petitioner learned that the Board of Engineers had approved the use of additional codes, standards and manuals that are bound in three ring binders during the examination. One of these newly approved references was the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board. Petitioner did not have his copy of the Highway Capacity Manual with him at the examination site because of the prior prohibition against its use during the exam. Petitioner did not object to the last minute expansion of the reference materials list until after he received his test results. The examination questions and answers challenged by Petitioner are Questions #124 and #425. Question #124 involved a five-sided figure that contained curves in two of its sides. According to the situation given as part of the test question, this figure was a parcel of land. The engineer was required to compute the area of the parcel. The first requirement for part (a) of the question was the computation of the area of traverse ABCDEA in acres. The figure provided some of the sector measurements in feet as well as a stated radius for each curved area. A review of Petitioner's calculations for part (a) reveals that he did not close the figure. Closure is required in a problem involving land boundaries. Thus, he was not able to compute the area and convert the measurement to acres, as required. Each side had to be included to obtain the proper area measurement. Petitioner did not demonstrate entitlement to credit for his incorrect answer to part (a) because he did not follow the instructions or demonstrate competency in the engineering principles tested by this question. The scoring plan for the examination did not provide partial credit for the incomplete calculations made by Petitioner on this portion of the exam. Petitioner received full credit for part (b) of Question #124 during the original grading of the exam so that portion of the question is not in dispute. Part (c) of Question #124 required the exam candidates to compute the length of curve DE in feet. The measurement for sector DE was provided in feet along with the measurement for the radius. Petitioner's answer to Question #124, part (c) was 514.39 feet. The correct answer was 514.79 feet. Although Petitioner's solution is similar to the correct answer, he did not compute the length of the curve for the side DE as required by the exam instructions. Instead, he computed the central angle for the circular arc DE. Even in his computation of the central angle, Petitioner used a central angle of 58.94 instead of the correct angle of 58.99. The examination sought to test Petitioner's ability to compute the length of a curve. Petitioner ignored the instruction and used a different calculation method that was not requested. As a result, no credit was given for the wrong answer. Petitioner did not demonstrate competency in the engineering principles being tested. Question #425 was a multiple-choice problem with ten parts. The responses were to be made from five alternatives for each part. Petitioner received eight of the ten possible points for the question. Only subparts (3) and (4) were answered incorrectly. Petitioner did not demonstrate entitlement to credit for his incorrect answer to subpart (3) of Question #425. He did not provide evidence to support his theory that his answer "D" (1,390 gallons) was within a reasonable margin of error and should be given credit. The correct answer is "E" (1,410 gallons). The necessary calculations reveal that the actual answer is 1,408 gallons. The question asks for the multiple choice selection which is "most nearly" accurate based on the information given in subpart (2). Based upon the problem itself, Petitioner's additional input regarding temperature and expansion possibilities are without merit. The problem was not solved as presented. Petitioner did not demonstrate his ability to properly calculate the amount of substance occupying a particular volume. Subpart (4) of Question #425 deals with the symbols for roadway materials. The candidates were expected to select one of the listed materials as the one most likely used at a particular stage of roadway construction. Petitioner was unable to reference the Highway Capacity Manual when answering this question because the original instructions in the Professional Engineer Candidate Information Booklet instructed candidates that the only three-ring binder book allowed into the exam was the Standard Building Code. Although the decision prohibiting the entry of the Highway Capacity Manual into the examination room was changed prior to the exam, Petitioner was not alerted in time to have it available for his use. Prior to final hearing, Petitioner contended that if he had been given sufficient notice, he could have used the Highway Capacity Manual to define the symbols in subpart (4) of Question #425. At final hearing, Petitioner stated the answer could be in that manual or one of the other handbooks in the same series. The Highway Capacity Manual does not contain definitions for the symbols set forth in subpart (4). The Asphalt Handbook may contain such symbols. This reference would have been allowed into the examination even prior to the changed ruling on references contained in three-ring binders. The Hearing Officer was unable to find all of the symbols in subpart (4) in the pages provided by Petitioner. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the change in the Department's policy regarding references in three-ring binders affected his ability to correctly answer subpart (4) of Question #425. He should not be given credit for his incorrect response on the answer sheet.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: The Department should enter a Final Order which denies Petitioner's challenges to Questions #124 and #425. The exhibits marked "confidential" should remain sealed and not open to public inspection. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 12th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Argumentative. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #9. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #14. There was no number 20 in Petitioner's findings. Rejected. It was Petitioner's responsibility to meet this burden. Rejected. Improper argument. Rejected. Argument as opposed to factual finding. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #23. Rejected. Speculative and contrary to evidence. Accepted. Accepted, except for the disadvantage issue. Speculative. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Improper summary. Argumentative. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #12. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11 and #14. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #18-#19. Accepted. See HO #23. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Russell A. Ferlita 1220 LaBrad Lane Tampa, FL 33613 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-07950
Findings Of Fact In June, 1987, petitioner, J. Frank Smith, was an examinee on Division (C) of the professional architectural examination. Successful completion of the examination is a prerequisite to the issuance of a license as an architect by respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture (Board or Department). Petitioner had previously received passing grades on all other parts of the examination. By notice dated October 9, 1987, petitioner was advised by the Department's Office of Examination Services that he had received a "Fail" score on Division (C). After participating in an informal grade review session concerning his examination score, 1/ Smith requested a formal hearing by letter dated December 2, 1987. Although the letter did not identify any alleged errors in the manner in which the examination was graded, Smith's concerns were brought out during final hearing. Division (C) is a twelve hour sketch problem involving building design considerations. On the examination in question, the candidates were required to design a downtown athletic club including a site and first floor plan, a second floor plan, elevations and building section. To receive a passing score, the candidate had to prepare "minimally acceptable solutions" in the following major categories: (a) program requirements, (b) design logic, (c) code compliance, (d) technical aspects, and (e) completeness and clarity of presentation, adherence to test instructions, or required drawing(s) missing. By rule, the Board has established a passing score to be a 3 or 4 while a fail score is 2, 1 or 0. In order to pass, a candidate is required to receive at least two passing scores from the graders. For the June, 1987 examination, approximately 150 professional architects were used to grade the candidates' examinations in two regional locations. The graders were experienced architects who had graded examinations in prior years. Before actually grading the solutions, the graders were given one-half day training sessions which consisted of receiving instructions in the grading process, reviewing the grading criteria and practicing on sample solutions that had already been graded by master jurists. The instruction was given by the director of examinations development for the National Council of Architecture Registration Boards (NCARB). The NCARB is the organization that prepares the examination questions. The live grading began on the afternoon of the first day of the examination. The graders used a holistic grading approach which meant they reviewed the entire examination and made a pass-fail judgment. If a failing grade was assigned, the grader was required to check up to three so-called "weakness boxes" on the grading sheet to indicate in which areas the grader found the candidate to be deficient. A grader was also allowed to make brief written comments next to the checked boxes to elaborate on the perceived weaknesses. After being graded by the first grader, the examination was given to a second and third grader, both of whom were unaware of the scores assigned by the others. If a mixed score occurred, that is, two 2's and a 3 or two 3's and a 2, a master jurist then graded the examination. Therefore, it was possible for the same examination to be graded four times before a final score was assigned. In Smith's case, he initially received two 2's and a 3, or an overall fail score. A master jurist reviewed the solutions and assigned a grade of 2. Thus, Smith did not pass Division (C). Grader 1217-153 assigned a score of 2 and noted that Smith was weak in category M, or completeness and clarity of presentation, adherence to test instructions, or required drawing(s) missing. Grader 1232-155 assigned a score of 2 and checked off areas A, G and K which meant Smith was weak in the areas of program requirements, code compliance and technical aspects, respectively. Finally, Grader 9929-075 concluded that a score of 2 was appropriate since he believed Smith was weak in areas D, E and G. Areas D and E pertained to design logic (circulation) and design logic (spatial relationships/ proportions/adjacencies) while Area G, as noted above, related to technical aspects. The fourth grader assigned a passing score of 3. At hearing, Smith testified on his own behalf and generally reviewed his solution pointing out what he perceived to be his strengths and weaknesses. As he saw it, he attained a passing score. Smith is a graduate, with high honors, of the University of Florida School of Architecture in 1976 and received a master's degree in architecture from the university of Illinois in 1983. He is president of a construction firm in Fort Lauderdale that designs and constructs various projects, both large and small, and his partner is a registered architect. In addition to his own results, Smith offered into evidence the solutions prepared by five other candidates who received passing scores on the June, 1987 examination. Smith then attempted to point out that, even though their solutions contained various flaws, the candidates nonetheless received passing grades. Expert witness Butt, who is a registered architect, was a long time professor and former chairman of the School of Architecture at the university of Florida. He continues to do consulting work for the Board. Butt has been a grader on many examinations and was a master jurist as recently as 1987. Butt regraded Smith's examination and concluded that a score of 2 was appropriate. This was because he noted major deficiencies in the areas of design logic (circulation), code compliance, and completeness, clarity and presentation of the solution as to the structural system. More specifically Smith failed to adequately address certain public circulation questions on the building's first floor. This raised serious concerns as to petitioner's design logic and compliance with building codes. In addition, the structural system, which was required to be shown as part of the transverse section, was incomplete and contained several errors. Further, no structural system was shown on the west side of the building. Other difficulties included poor circulation around the monumental staircase, questionable design logic as to fire safety requirements in front of the building and the use of two hour rated firewalls throughout the entire building even though the fire code required only one hour rated firewalls. Butt's testimony as to the appropriate grade to be assigned Smith's examination is found to be more credible than that of Smith and is hereby accepted. Although several errors were noted on the other solutions of passing candidates, those errors were not so serious in nature as to require a failing grade. Further, such errors were solvable without major modifications in the design intent of the subject, and the candidates had completed all program requirements on the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of J. Frank Smith to receive a passing score on Division (C) of the June, 1987 professional architectural examination be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 28th day of September, 1988.
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 The ultimate issue in this proceeding is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004, in relevant part, states: The criteria for determining the minimum score necessary for passing the Engineering Fundamentals Examination shall be developed through the collective judgment of qualified experts appointed by NCEES to set the raw score that represents the minimum amount of knowledge necessary to pass the examination. The judges shall use a Modified Angoff Method in determining the minimally acceptable raw score necessary to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination. Using the above mentioned Modified Angoff Method, the judges will indicate the probability that a minimally knowledgeable Fundamentals of Engineering examinee would answer any specific questions correctly. The probability of a correct response is then assigned to each question. Each judge will then make an estimate of the percentage of minimally knowledgeable examinees who would know the answer to each question. The totals each of the judges is added together and divided by the number of judges to determine the overall estimate of the minimum standards necessary. The minimum number of correct answers required to achieve a passing score will take into account the relative difficulty of each examination through scaling and equating each examination to the base examination. The raw score necessary to show competence shall be deemed to be a 70 on a scale of 100. A passing grade on Part Two of the examination is defined as a grade of 70 or better. The grades are determined by a group of knowledgeable professional engineers, who are familiar with engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering task. These professional engineers will establish a minimum passing score on each individual test item (i.e., examination problem). An Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) will be prepared for each examination item based upon the NCEES standard scoring plan outline form. An ISSP will be developed by persons who are familiar with each discipline including the item author, the item scorer, and other NCEES experts. On a scale of 0-10, six (6) will be a minimum passing standard and scores between six (6) and ten (10) will be considered to be passing scores for each examination item. A score of five (5) or lower will be considered an unsatisfactory score for that item and examinee will be considered to have failed that item. To pass, an examinee must average six (6) or greater on his/her choice of eight (8) exam items, that is, the raw score must be forty- eight (48) or greater based on a scale of eighty (80). This raw score is then converted to a base 100 on which, as is noted above, a passing grade will be seventy (70). The proposed changes to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004, in relevant part, state: The passing grade for the Engineering Fundamentals Examination is 70 or better. The criteria for determining the minimum score necessary for passing the Engineering Fundamentals Examination shall be developed through the collective judgment of qualified experts appointed by NCEES to set the raw score that represents the minimum amount of knowledge necessary to pass the examination. The judges shall use a Modified Angoff Method in determining the minimally acceptable raw score necessary to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination. Using the above mentioned Modified Angoff Method, the judges will indicate the probability that a minimally knowledgeable Fundamentals of Engineering examinee would answer any specific questions correctly. The probability of a correct response is then assigned to each question. Each judge will then make an estimate of the percentage of minimally knowledgeable examinees who would know the answer to each question. The totals each of the judges is added together and divided by the number of judges to determine the overall estimate of the minimum standards necessary. The minimum number of correct answers required to achieve a passing score will take into account the relative difficulty of each examination through scaling and equating each examination to the base examination. The raw score necessary to show competence shall be deemed to be a 70 on a scale of 100. The passing grade for the Principles and Practice Examination is 70 or better. A passing grade on Part Two of the examination is defined as a grade of 70 or better. The grades are determined by a group of knowledgeable professional engineers, who are familiar with engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering task. These professional engineers will establish a minimum passing score on each individual test item (i.e., examination problem). An Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) will be prepared for each examination item based upon the NCEES standard scoring plan outline form. An ISSP will be developed by persons who are familiar with each discipline including the item author, the item scorer, and other NCEES experts. On a scale of 0-10, six (6) will be a minimum passing standard and scores between six (6) and ten (10) will be considered to be passing scores for each examination item. A score of five (5) or lower will be considered an unsatisfactory score for that item and examinee will be considered to have failed that item. To pass, an examinee must average six (6) or greater on his/her choice of eight (8) exam items, that is, the raw score must be forty- eight (48) or greater based on a scale of eighty (80). This raw score is then converted to a base 100 on which, as is noted above, a passing grade will be seventy (70). Petitioner resides in Tampa, Florida. On April 11, 2003, Petitioner took a national examination that Petitioner must pass to be licensed by the state as a professional engineer. On July 1, 2003, Petitioner received a letter from the Board advising Petitioner that he had received a failing grade on the examination. On July 2, 2003, Petitioner unsuccessfully requested the raw scores on his examination from a representative of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The NCEES is the national testing entity that conducts examinations and determines scores for the professional engineer examination required by the state. On July 9, 2003, Petitioner submitted a formal request to the Board for all of the raw scores related to Petitioner "and all past P.E. Exams that the Petitioner had taken." A representative of the Board denied Petitioner's request explaining that the raw scores are kept by the NCEES and "it is not their policy to release them." The Board's representative stated that the Board was in the process of adopting new rules "that were in-line with the policies of the NCEES." On July 31, 2003, Petitioner requested the Board to provide Petitioner with any statute or rule that authorized the Board to deny Petitioner's request for raw scores pursuant to Section 119.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). On the same day, counsel for the Board explained to Petitioner that the Board is not denying the request. The Board is unable to comply with the request because the Board does not have physical possession of the raw scores. Petitioner and counsel for Respondent engaged in subsequent discussions that are not material to this proceeding. On August 6, 2003, Petitioner requested counsel for Respondent to provide Petitioner with copies of the proposed rule changes that the Board intended to consider on August 8, 2003. On August 27, 2003, Petitioner filed a petition with the Board challenging existing Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004. The petition alleged that parts of the existing rule are invalid. Petitioner did not file a challenge to the existing rule with DOAH. The Petition for Hearing states that Petitioner is filing the Petition for Hearing pursuant to Subsections 120.56(1) and (3)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). However, the statement of how Petitioner's substantial interests are affected is limited to the proposed changes to the existing rule. During the hearing conducted on January 29, 2004, Petitioner explained that he does not assert that the existing rule is invalid. Rather, Petitioner argues that the Board deviates from the existing rule by not providing examinees with copies of their raw scores and by failing to use raw scores in the determination of whether an applicant achieved a passing grade on the exam. Petitioner further argues that the existing rule benefits Petitioner by purportedly requiring the Board to use raw scores in the determination of passing grades. The elimination of that requirement in the proposed rule arguably will adversely affect Petitioner's substantial interests. The Petition for Hearing requests several forms of relief. The Petition for Hearing seeks an order granting Petitioner access to raw scores, a determination that Petitioner has met the minimum standards required under the existing rule, and an order that the Board grant a license to Petitioner. The Petition for Hearing does not request an order determining that the proposed rule changes constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner successfully completed the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination on April 14, 2000, of the Board of Professional Engineers.
Findings Of Fact On April 14, 2000, Petitioner took the Examination. The minimum score required to pass the Examination was Respondent notified Petitioner that he had not successfully completed the Examination, having received a score of 69. The Examination is a national examination and is graded by national examiners, i. e., the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). A separate scoring plan is used for grading each essay question. A separate scorer is used for each essay question, generally scores a given question for all of the Examination. The identity of the candidate/examinee by name is not revealed; the candidate/examinee is given a number and is identified by the number given to him/her. By letter dated September 19, 2000, Petitioner notified Respondent that he was challenging essay questions numbered 120, 124, and 211 on the Examination and that he was requesting a re- scoring of those questions. Petitioner completed a Request for Review of Examination Item form for each question and included, from his point of view, why he should be afforded additional credit and what score he should receive for each question. Petitioner's Examination was returned to the NCEES for review and rescoring. NCEES' rescorer used the same scoring plan that was used for the Examination. NCEES' rescorer recommended that Petitioner receive no additional points for questions numbered 120, 124, and 211 and included a detailed rationale for the recommended score of each challenged question. NCEES determined that Petitioner was not entitled to additional credit and further determined that Petitioner's total raw score of 47, equivalent to a total score of 69, would not be changed. The maximum score achievable for each essay question was ten points, with points subtracted for various reasons as provided in the scoring plan. The score for each essay question was rounded to the next highest even number, resulting in a score of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10. For question numbered 120, Petitioner received a score of eight points. Petitioner challenges only one part of question numbered 120, regarding his computation of the ultimate bearing capacity for a given footing. For question numbered 120, Petitioner ignored the correction in the requirement for the mid-height water table. He quoted an equation from a reference material but failed to include the correction for the water table in his equation. Furthermore, even though Petitioner incorrectly calculated the effective weight of the soil, he failed to include in the question what he had calculated. The scoring plan for question numbered 120 requires a two-point reduction if the correction for the water table is ignored. Petitioner failed to correctly answer the challenged portion of question numbered 120. Petitioner should receive a score of eight points and, therefore, should not receive any additional points. For question numbered 124, Petitioner received a score of 6 points. Petitioner challenges only one part of question numbered 124, regarding his determination of the maximum sight distance obtainable in the given situation. Petitioner contends that the challenged part was improper, arbitrary, subjective, and open to interpretation. The challenged part of question numbered 124 asked the candidate to determine the maximum distance from the eye to the top of a six-inch high object on the road. It is clear that the challenged part asked for the determination as to how far one can see in a straight line before something obstructs one's view. In making the determination, no additional factors were to be considered, such as what the headlight factor was, or what the ability of a car to stop was, or what the conditions of the road were, or any other factor. Petitioner assumed additional factors. He assumed the sight distance for a sag vertical curve as a stopping sight distance. In calculating the distance, Petitioner made no reference to the obstruction in the calculation formula. His answer had a numerical difference from the correct answer of more than ten percent. The difference was 69 percent. The challenged part of question numbered 124 was not arbitrary, capricious, improper, subjective, or open to interpretation. According to the scoring plan, Petitioner's answer for question numbered 124 requires a two point reduction. Petitioner failed to correctly answer the challenged portion of question numbered 124. Petitioner should receive a score of six points and is, therefore, not entitled to receive any additional points. For question numbered 211, Petitioner received a score of four points. Petitioner challenges the question to the extent that he asserts that he answered 75 percent of the question correctly and, therefore, should receive a score of at least six points. Question numbered 211 is a two-part question. Petitioner admits that he made numerical errors in his solution and that he failed to answer the second part of the question. Petitioner contends that he had insufficient time to answer the second part and that, if he had sufficient time, he would have performed re-calculations and would have been able to demonstrate his understanding of the principles of pumps in series and pumps in parallel. Regardless of Petitioner's contention, his failure to answer the second part of the question was what was before the scorer and re-scorer and was reasonably determined to demonstrate that he failed to understand the development of a pump curve for pumps in series. Failure to demonstrate understanding of the development of a pump curve for pumps in series constitutes, according to the scoring plan, a fundamental error. Because of his errors in the solution and his failure to answer one part, the scoring plan requires that Petitioner receive a score of four points. Petitioner should receive a score of four points and is, therefore, not entitled to receive any additional points. Petitioner's answers were not arbitrarily or capriciously graded. The grading was not devoid of logic and reason. The scoring plan was properly used. At hearing, Petitioner demonstrated a great deal of knowledge regarding the challenged questions. However, he failed to demonstrate such knowledge on the Examination. Petitioner's score on the Examination should not be changed and, therefore, should remain at 69. Petitioner has not obtained the minimum score required to pass the Examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order finding Giovanni L. Campodonico ineligible for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 2001.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Mr. Lord should be granted additional credit for his answer to question number 144 on the April 1990 Professional Engineer licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Lord (Candidate #301402) received a score of 66.3 percent on the April 20, 1991, Principals and Practice portion of the Professional Engineer examination. A minimum passing score was 70.0 percent. Mr. Lord challenged the scoring of his response to question number 144. Question number 144 is an essay question involving an assembly line problem where four separate stations are used to assemble a product in sequence. A fifth station can assist in maximizing the number of finished products produced per hour, and is capable of performing all operations. The correct answer to question number 144 was 100 products per hour, while Mr. Lord's answer was 25 pieces per hour. Petitioner received a score of 2 (out of a possible 10) points on question number 144. This was based on the scoring plan developed for the exam by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Mr. Lord used a method of averaging station assembly times to determine the maximum average number of products each station could produce. The averaging method gave a solution which did not identify the central issue presented by the essay question: identifying and eliminating the bottlenecks in production. Mr. Lord also made an assumption that the initial four stations could do all operations, thus defining the model inaccurately. This misreading allowed Mr. Lord to use an averaging methodology. Mr. Granata, the Department's expert, testified that it is a coincidence of the numbers that if you multiply Respondent's answer (25) by four (the initial number of machines) you get the Board's answer (100). Mr. Greenbaum, Petitioner's expert witness, testified that Petitioner's answer is "unique" and that he, as an expert, would have answered the question using a methodology similar to the one developed by the Department's expert, Mr. Granata, and by the NCEE (National Council of Examiners for Engineering).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the challenge to the grading of Mr. Lord's response to question 144 on the April 1990 Professional Engineer licensure examination be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 14th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: William F. Whitson, Law Clerk Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Curtis Lord 1416A Old Lystra Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Glen Hamner, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The examination consists of two parts. "Part B," which is a written examination, is given in December of each year and has already been successfully passed by the Petitioner. The other portion, "Part A," consists of a site plan and design problem and is administered in June of each year. The Petitioner met all the preliminary requirements for admittance to the licensure examination and took the subject design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination, adopted in Florida, in June of 1980. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour drafting or sketch problem involving design and site plan criteria and considerations. It is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as all other jurisdictions in the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Board (NCARB). The examination problem involves requirements for placing a structure on a site, designing and drawing the elevations, the building cross-sections, the facades and the floor plan. There are few factual questions disputed in this cause. The Board of Architecture has long required examination prior to a candidate being licensed as a registered architect in the State of Florida. This statutory authorization was continued in Section 481.213(2), Florida Statutes, when it was adopted by the Legislature in 1979. The original examination administered by the Board prior to 1974 was a seven-part, 36-hour examination, including as two of its parts a site plan and design problem essentially identical to that administered in the present "Part A" of the Professional Architectural Examination which is the subject matter of this proceeding. This original seven-part examination had been administered for many years by the Board until the Board, in consultation with NCARB and other jurisdictions who are members of NCARB, determined that examination did not adequately test minimal competency to practice architecture. This ultimate determination was made after a thorough review by NCARB prior to 1974 and ultimately resulted in the creation of a new professional examination, which was adopted by all the member states and which consisted of what is now "Part B" of the Professional Architectural Examination (the written examination). The Executive Director of NCARB, Samuel Balin, was instrumental in the preparation of the initial professional examination. His testimony described the concern the National Council and the Boards had regarding the original seven-part examination, that it was an extremely technical examination, aside from the site and design plan problem, designed primarily to cover subjects which had already been covered in most accredited college degree programs. Thus, at the time the NCARB and member boards were in the process of changing over from the seven-part examination to what is now the "Part B" professional examination, NCARB and the member boards of each state were also rapidly moving toward requiring the completion of architectural degrees by candidates as a prerequisite to entry into the architectural profession. As established by this witness, NCARB research showed that much of the material contained in the seven- part examination was already adequately taught in the various universities offering architectural degree programs, and thus the examination necessary for registration should focus on the professional aspects of architecture and the practical methods by which an architect actually must provide his services to the public, rather than merely being an examination consisting of a review of what had already been taught in the colleges and universities. Based on this intensive review regarding the most appropriate means to test architectural competency based upon what candidates were already receiving in various degree programs, the two-day "Part B" examination was developed and first offered in 1973, concurrently with the seven-part examination previously in effect. It was determined by the Respondent, other state boards and the NCARB that, since many individuals had successfully completed large portions of the seven-part examination, it would be unfair to not allow them to finish the examinations they had originally begun. A minimal number of parts passed on the seven-part examination was thus required in order for a candidate to continue to attain licensure based upon that examination during the 1974 examination session. Subsequent to 1974, an individual who had not already successfully completed the entire seven-part examination was required by the Board to take what is presently "Part B" of the current examination. Thus, from 1975 through 1977, the sole licensure examination, requirement in Florida was the "Part B" written examination provided to the Florida Board by NCARB and adopted by the Florida Board in its rules as Rule 21B-2.02(1), Florida Administrative Code (1974). During the period 1974 to 1977, the Board became increasingly concerned with deficient graphic abilities of examination candidates in drafting plans, as well as their physical ability to synthesize the problems faced by an architect in building design into overall solutions and to incorporate those solutions into appropriate building and site plans for clients. Accordingly, a number of states expressed to NCARB their desire to have a site and design plan problem again incorporated into the National Architectural Examination. As a result of these requests, NCARB initiated a study to determine whether such a site and design plan problem was really a legitimate tool to test the competency of an architect in synthesizing building and construction design problems and expressing in a graphic manner the various component skills or abilities required to practice the profession of architecture and, corollarily, whether or not the lack of it in the "Part B" examination rendered it a substandard tool for determining minimal competence. The study resulted in a report by a distinguished panel of architects from various jurisdictions which recommended that, in fact, the site plan and design problem should be included in the professional examination. Florida then, in 1977, determined, based upon the evidence presented to it by NCARB, as well as through its own professional expertise, that a site and design plan problem was indeed a necessary component in determining minimal competency of architectural licensure candidates. The NCARB, at its meeting of June, 1977, thus adopted the site and design plan problem as part of the uniform National Professional Architectural Examination. The Florida Board subsequently thereto, and after receiving detailed information regarding the contents of the new portion of the national examination, proposed its own Rule 21B-2.02(2), on March 31, 1978, by notice contained in the Florida Administrative Weekly, which rule constituted Florida's adoption of the new site and design plan problem added to the National Professional Architectural Examination by NCARB. A hearing was held before the Florida Board on April 28, 1978, and the rule was certified and filed with the Secretary of State on May 30, 1978. Documents required to be filed with that rule pursuant to Chapter 120 were admitted into evidence in this proceeding. The effective date of Rule 21B-2.02(2) was June 19, 1978, therefore, subsequent to that date the professional architectural examination in Florida has consisted of two parts. One part being "Part A" which was the new site and design plan problem and the other part being the previously adopted "Part B" (multiple choice examination). The Legislature in 1979 pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, "sunsetted" all professional boards. The Board of Architecture was reconstituted pursuant to Chapter 79-273, Laws of Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 79-273 it was provided that all rules in existence would be repealed as of January 1, 1980. Accordingly, on December 3, 1979, the Florida Board readopted, pursuant to Section 481.209, Florida Statutes, and Section 455.217, Florida Statutes, examination rules set out in Rules 21B-14.01, 14.02 and 14.03, Florida Administrative Code (the successors to the above-cited rule) . There have been no substantive amendments to those rules since their effective date of December 23, 1979, and the issues with which the Petitioner's challenge to the rules are concerned have not been substantially affected by that readoption procedure.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answers to Questions 34, 65, and 75 on the Fundamentals of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on the morning of April 15, 2000, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On April 15, 2000, as part of his effort to obtain a license to practice as an engineer intern in the State of Florida, Petitioner sat for the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination (Examination). This was a national multiple-choice examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). The Examination was divided into two sessions: a morning session (AM Part), which tested "lower division subjects" (that is, "the first 90 semester credit hours . . . of engineering course work for a typical bachelor engineering degree program"), and an afternoon session (PM Part), which tested "upper division subjects" (that is, "the remainder of the engineering course work"). Questions on the AM Part were worth one raw point each. Questions on the PM Part were worth two raw points each. The NCEES provided candidates taking the Examination with a Fundamentals of Engineering, Discipline Specific, Reference Handbook (Reference Handbook) that they were allowed to refer to during the Examination. The Reference Handbook, as noted in its Foreword, "contain[ed] only reference formulas and tables; no example problems [we]re included." Petitioner received a total raw score of 104 on the Examination (54 for the AM Part and 50 for the PM Part). According to the NCEES's Score Conversion Table, a raw score of 104 converted to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 (or 107-109 raw points) was needed. Accordingly, Petitioner fell three raw points short of receiving a passing score. Petitioner has formally requested that the grading of his answers to Questions 34, 65, and 75 of the AM Part be reviewed. He received no credit for any of these answers. Had these answers been deemed correct (and he received one raw point for each answer), he would have passed the Examination (with a converted score of 70). Question 34 of the AM Part was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that covered subject matter (integral calculus) with which Petitioner and the other candidates should have been familiar. There was only one correct answer to this question, and it was among the responses from which the candidates had to choose. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect because it represented a particular solution or expression, and not the "general expression" (representing all solutions) called for by the question. He therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer. Questions 65 and 75 of the AM Part, like Question 34, were clear and unambiguous multiple choice questions that covered subject areas (centroids and thermodynamics, respectively) with which Petitioner and the other candidates should have been familiar. Each of these questions, again like Question 34, had only one correct answer that was listed among the choices from which the candidates had to choose. To answer each question correctly, the candidates had to use a formula that was set forth in the Reference Handbook (on page 21 in the case of Question 65 and on page 46 in the case of Question 75). Petitioner selected neither the correct answer to Question 65, nor the correct answer to Question 75, and therefore was not entitled to any credit for his answers to these questions.
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 Fundamentals of Engineering portion of the April 15, 2000, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2000, 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 15th day of November, 2000.
