The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner David Hall’s answer to question number 115 on the Florida State Officer Certification Examination should have been accepted as correct.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a former police officer from New York who wishes to relocate to Florida. He took the exam on June 30, 2015. According to his Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, Petitioner missed passing the exam by one question. He made the decision to challenge the Department’s determination as to the correct answer for exam question number 115. That question and answer choices as set forth in the exam are as follows: Q: In accordance with Chapter 810, F.S., how are burglaries classified? Intent of suspects Type of location entered Tools used in commission Number of persons involved Petitioner chose Answer A. He reasoned that, according to the curriculum, burglary was distinguished from trespassing by a single element, i.e., the intent of the offender. While acknowledging that the type of location was also a way to classify burglaries, he reasoned that either answer would be equally correct. Petitioner cites to the Florida Basic Recruit Training Program book (the “Manual”) utilized by the Florida Law Enforcement Academy (Volume 1, Version 2014.07), which was the primary curriculum material for persons taking the exam in June 2015. On page 337 of the Manual, the following statement appears: Trespassing and burglary are similar, yet different, and can be confusing. Trespassing involves being somewhere that you do not own and without permission of the owner. The difference with burglary is that you are somewhere that you do not own and without permission of the owner; however, the intent of being there is different. The intent for being there is to commit another crime, such as theft. Petitioner analogized a house guest versus an intruder to classify each crime, but his analysis addressed the elements of the crimes rather than how the crimes are classified. The Department used experienced field training officers to help develop and verify the exam questions. The officers reviewed question 115 and found it to be valid, legitimate, and in accordance with the Manual. The proper and only fully correct answer to question 115 was B, type of location entered. The basis for this answer appears in the Manual at page 336, which states in pertinent part: Chapter 810, F.S. classifies burglaries according to the type of location entered, such as a dwelling, structure, or conveyance. Penalties are more severe for burglary of a dwelling than for a structure or conveyance. (Emphasis added). The Department maintains that the clear language of question number 115-–taken almost verbatim from the Manual-– dictates a single answer, B. The question asks how the crime of burglary, which by its definition includes the offender’s intent, is classified. That is, the question is concerned with how the crime will be classified (i.e., more or less severely) based upon where it occurred. The question does not ask for the elements of burglary, which would require the examinee to include intent. The question was not ambiguous. Interestingly, Roy Gunnarsson, FDLE’s training and research manager, an expert in psychometrics, a field of study and practice involving the measurement of human knowledge skills and abilities, determined that more examinees (165) answered the same way as Petitioner than answered correctly (164). But as the expert testified, testing is not governed by majority vote. From the test results, it is clear that question number 115 was difficult, with most examinees failing to answer correctly. That does not invalidate the question; it only verifies that the question was harder than others. Because of Petitioner’s challenge, Mr. Gunnarsson prepared an “Item Challenge Response,” a review of the challenged question and its possible answers. After conducting an intensive review of the matter, he concluded that the question and answer were “accurate, located in the curriculum, and [he] denies the validity of the examinee’s claim.” His opinion was based upon the application of psychometrics to the test and on his experience and training. Petitioner, who seemed to have extensive knowledge concerning law enforcement, argued his position quite well. Unfortunately, his arguments are not supported by the plain language appearing in the training manual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Law Enforcement denying Petitioner David Hall’s challenge to question number 115 in the Florida State Officer Certification Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 11th day of February, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 (eServed) David Joshua Hall 29 Slosson Lane Geneva, New York 14456 (eServed) Jason Jones, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 (eServed) Richard L. Swearingen, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 (eServed)
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Adela Popescu holds Florida Educator's Certificate 876674 covering the area of mathematics, which was valid through June 30, 2006. She was employed by the Broward County School District as a math teacher. The Florida Teacher Certification Examination ("FTCE") is a statewide examination. It is given four times a year at multiple locations. The Department of Education contracts with the Institute of Instructional Research and Practice of the University of South Florida to administer the examination, and the Institute contracts with persons to serve as room proctors and to grade the essay part of the general knowledge portion of the examination. The general knowledge portion of the examination is a basic skills test. Respondent applied to take the general knowledge portion of the test on April 16, 2005. That portion required the examinees to write a short essay on a choice of topics. The Department provided to Respondent, along with her admission card allowing her to take the examination, the Department's written guidelines prohibiting cheating on the examination and itemizing some activities considered cheating following the words "including but not limited to." Respondent took the essay portion of the general knowledge examination on April 16, 2005. At the beginning of the examination, the examinees were given written instructions. The instructions specifically provided: "You will have 50 minutes to plan, write, and proofread an ORIGINAL essay on one of the two topics presented below." Two topics were presented and then the following sentence provided: "Read the two topics again and select the one on which you wish to write your ORIGINAL essay." The word "original" was in capital letters in both sentences. In addition to the written instructions, the room supervisor for the test read the following instructions to the group of examinees: You must write an original essay that specifically and directly responds to the topic you select. Pre-prepared essays that are discovered to contain memorized sentences or passages will be marked accordingly. For example, if the essay raters discover passages that appear in two or more essays, the essays will be brought to the attention of the Florida Department of Education. The above-quoted language was read three times in succession in order to emphasize the need to write an original essay. Therefore, the requirement that the essay be original was presented to the examinees two times in writing and three times verbally, for a total of five times. There was no minimum or maximum length to the essay. The topics given required no particular level of knowledge of anything; rather, the topics were akin to asking an elementary school student to write an essay on what the child did during the summer vacation. It is surprising to find such a basic task on an examination given to college graduates, but at hearing the Department presented testimony to the effect that it is only trying to ascertain if the examinee can communicate extemporaneously, i.e., whether he or she is capable of writing a note to a student's parents. The five-paragraph-long essay that Respondent turned in as her original work is virtually identical to an essay the Department has seen so many times that Department staff refer to it as "the lush green hills essay." Admitted in evidence were the essays of three examinees who took the exam prior to Respondent and two examinees who took the exam on the same date. The primary differences in the essays arise from inferior skills in the English language so, for example, one examinee wrote "the lunch green hills," Respondent wrote "the lash green hills," one examinee apparently forgot that the green hills were "lush," and one examinee apparently thought there was only one hill. Otherwise, there are few differences in the essays. Respondent's essay was flagged by the essay readers, referred to the chief reader, and then forwarded to the Department. The Department agreed with the determination that the essay was not "original," that Respondent had cheated on the examination, and that her essay should be declared invalid. The Department so advised Respondent by letter dated May 16, 2005. In addition to advising Respondent that her score on the essay subtest of the general knowledge examination was invalid, the Department also advised Respondent that she had a right to an administrative hearing on that determination. Respondent did request an administrative hearing, and the case was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 05-2318. Before the final hearing in that case, Respondent filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of her request for a hearing. There is a dearth of evidence in the record in this cause as to how or when Respondent was issued a Florida Educator's Certificate. However, the parties have stipulated that she was licensed, with her license expiring June 30, 2006. Prior to that date, the Commissioner of Education issued the Amended Administrative Complaint which is the subject of this proceeding. There is no evidence as to how Respondent plagiarized someone else's work: whether she brought it into the examination, whether she memorized it, or whether she obtained it through the use of technology. The method she used to cheat, however, is irrelevant since she represented someone else's work as her own and admits it was not an original essay. Shortly before the final hearing in this cause, the parties filed a number of motions typically designed to resolve a case without the need for a hearing. Petitioner argued that jurisdiction over this matter should be relinquished since by Respondent's admission that she did not turn in an original essay, which constituted cheating, there were no longer genuine issues of material fact. In opposition to that motion, Respondent asserted that Petitioner was relying on two policies which were required to be promulgated as rules but were not, thereby preventing Petitioner from taking disciplinary action against Respondent. Respondent alleges that the two unpromulgated rules upon which Petitioner relies are the definition of cheating, which appeared in the materials allowing Respondent admission to the examination, and the examination instructions, which required that an original essay be submitted and which were provided to Respondent twice in writing and three times verbally. Respondent did not raise these issues in her administrative challenge to the Department of Education's decision to declare her essay to be invalid, which would have been the appropriate proceeding since the question of whether she should be given a score for her essay or whether it should be declared invalid was the subject matter of that proceeding, not this proceeding. The two challenged policies, the definition of cheating and the essay instructions, are not rules and, therefore, need not be promulgated pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Further, neither the definition of cheating nor the essay instruction is vague, and neither vests unbridled discretion in anyone. The words "cheating" and "original" are not statutory terms, requiring interpretation. Further, they are not specialized terms unique to the Commissioner of Education or the Department of Education. They are words of common usage. Copying someone else's work and representing it to be one's own is a willful and intentional act. It is also unethical and dishonest to plagiarize.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of Counts 2, 3, and 5-7, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed in this cause and suspending or revoking Respondent's educator's certificate for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 23rd day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination administered on September 19, 1989. She failed to achieve a passing score on that examination. At the final hearing, Petitioner challenged the score given for her answers to question numbered 56 on Part I and her answers to questions numbered 11 and 47 on Part II of the examination. Part I, Item 56, was correctly scored as "A" rather than Petitioner's choice of "C". "A" required the client to make eye contact within 2 seconds of the prompt or instruction, which is an acceptable standard in the field of behavioral analysis. However, "C" allowed a 10-second latency period, which is an unacceptably long standard. Part II, Item 11, was correctly scored as "A" rather than "C" as selected by Petitioner. The question asked about a behavioral goal, and "A" is a good example of a goal, which is a general statement of behavioral change intended. "C" is a good example of an objective rather than a goal because it involves a short time frame and includes specific performance standards. Part II, Item 47, was correctly answered as "total duration of screaming in seconds" or "total duration of screaming in minutes." Petitioner's answer of "total duration of screaming" was incorrect because the question required showing the length of time, and no measure of time was given by Petitioner. At the formal review process conducted by the Department of Professional Regulation in Tallahassee, Petitioner was given for her review all questions from the examination and her answers to the multiple choice questions. She was also given grading sheets indicating the correct answer according to the "key" for the multiple choice questions and indicating which of her answers to the essay questions had been marked as being correct or incorrect. Inadvertently, she was not given her answers to the essay questions, and Petitioner failed to advise anyone that she had not been given that one component of the materials. At the conclusion of that review process she filed challenges to the three specific questions in dispute in this proceeding. On July 31, 1990, a prehearing review was conducted by the Department of Professional Regulation at which time Petitioner was again given materials to review in preparation for her presentation at the final hearing. She was permitted to review questions, her answers, and the correct answers to those questions which she had challenged. She was not given a copy of her answers to all of the essay questions on the Examination. Again, she said nothing. During the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner challenged the review process alleging that she was given incomplete materials and there for was not permitted to prepare properly for the final hearing. She admitted that she had not advised either the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services or the Department of Professional Regulation that she had been given incomplete materials, deciding instead to say nothing about that mistake until the final hearing. One of the three questions challenged by Petitioner was one of the short essay questions. Petitioner was not prejudiced by the Department's mistake during the formal review process. Petitioner voluntarily waived any other challenges she may have had to the short essay portion of the Examination or to the formal review process. Petitioner limited the challenges that she did file to three specific questions, and this proceeding has been limited to those three challenges which were timely and properly made.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenges to the September 19, 1989, Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination and finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing grade on that Examination. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24 day of September, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24 day of September 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-2405 Petitioner's first and second unnumbered paragraphs have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's third and fourth unnumbered paragraphs have been rejected as being unneccessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-6 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Hedrick, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kristin Korinko Stirling Road Apartments 4100 Northwest 77th Avenue Davie, Florida 33024
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by Rules 9.110 and 9.190, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Attn: Ronda L. Bryan, Agency Clerk, 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 92, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 and a second copy, accompanied by the filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Florida Appellate District where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Certified U.S. Mail to Oasis Cafe at Key Biscayne, c/o Carlos Flores, 19 Harbor Drive, Miami, Florida 33149; by regular U.S. Mail to the Honorable Darren A. Schwartz, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 3060; and by hand delivery to Marc Drexler, Chief Attorney, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business and Professional Regulations, 1940 North Monroe Styeet, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202, this |@¥day of Yezember , 2013. msn For the Division of Hotels and Restaurants 7196 4008 G11) 4516 1240 | SENDERS, RECORD
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner achieved a passing grade on the May 20, 1991, certified residential appraiser examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the May 20, 1991, certified residential appraiser examination. He was subsequently advised that he had correctly answered 74 out of the 100 questions and had therefore achieved a score of 74. A score of 75 is the passing score on that examination. In the development of the state certified residential appraiser examination, a job analysis was performed by Educational Testing Service of Princeton, New Jersey, a national psychometric company. From that job analysis, a list of tasks routinely performed by appraisers was developed. From that list of tasks, the uniform examination content outline was developed specifying the areas to be covered by the examination. From that uniform content outline, Educational Testing Service then developed a bank of questions to be utilized in the examinations for licensure or certification. Each item in the bank was validated by Educational Testing Service. Once Respondent received that bank of validated test items, it sent all of the items to the Appraiser Qualifications Board of the Appraisal Foundation, an entity involved in establishing uniform standards on a national level for real estate appraisers. Respondent's examination bank was also validated by the Appraiser Qualifications Board. In addition, Respondent has its own validation committee which meets prior to the administration of an examination to review the items on that examination to again verify that the test items are valid, are not ambiguous, and are correct and proper for a residential appraiser certification examination. The five questions challenged by Petitioner are part of the bank that was approved by the Appraiser Qualifications Board. Those five questions have been used on past examinations and have previously been determined to be valid. The five questions challenged by Petitioner ranged from moderately difficult to extremely easy. Subsequent to the filing of Petitioner's examination challenge, Respondent reviewed the questions challenged and performed a statistical item analysis. All of the questions had a positive point biserial correlation. The number of candidates correctly answering each of those questions was approximately the same as the number of candidates correctly answering those questions on previous examinations. For example, 94% of the candidates correctly answered question numbered 4. On previous examinations, 93% to 95% of the candidates had correctly answered that same item. Sixty-seven per cent of the candidates taking the May 20, 1991, certified residential appraiser examination achieved a passing grade. Their examination was a typical examination in that the usual percentage of candidates achieved a passing score. Question numbered 4 required the examinee to identify the item which was not a fixture. The correct answer was "D," which answer specified that the personalty was "unattached." Petitioner chose answer "C," which answer specified that the personalty was attached to the structure. Petitioner's answer was not correct. Question numbered 73 required the examinee to name the cost method defined in the question. The correct answer was "B." Petitioner chose answer "A," which was not a correct answer. Question numbered 32 tested the examinee's understanding of valuing property containing superadequacies and was written in the negative. The correct answer was "C." Petitioner's choice of "D" was not correct since that was one of the approaches that can be used. Question numbered 76 tested the examinee's understanding of the difference between reproduction costs and replacement costs. The correct answer was "B." Petitioner chose answer "D." Petitioner's answer was wrong. Although the testimony at the final hearing indicated that answer "A" may also have been a correct answer to this question, Petitioner did not choose answer "A." Question numbered 93 tested the examinee's knowledge of proper appraisal practices. Answer "A" was the correct answer. Petitioner chose answer "C," which was not correct. Although Petitioner questioned the propriety of this question as part of the residential appraiser examination, the expert testimony indicates that the question was appropriate. Further, the question has been validated as being appropriate by the Appraiser Qualifications Board applying national standards. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner meets all of the requirements for licensure as a certified residential appraiser except for achieving a passing grade on the certification examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petitioner's examination question challenges and finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing grade on the May 20, 1991, certified residential appraiser examination. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1992. Copies furnished: Mr. Stephen Metro 1841 Northwest 22nd Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Fred H. Wilsen, Chief Staff Attorney DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
