The Issue Whether problems occurred in Petitioner's examinations for licensure during the October 1990 and February 1991 construction examinations which were due to the Department's inaction or negligence. Whether provisions were made for Petitioner's physical handicap during the exam process. Whether Petitioner's responses to the examination questions on either of the examinations were sufficient to allow him to receive a passing grade and licensure.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Woodring has taken the Certified Residential Contractor's Examination three times. During these test taking sessions, he has been unable to successfully pass the examination. The second time Petitioner took the examination was in October 1990. His scores on the examination were: Part I - 64; Part II - 66; and Part III - 63. A passing score for each part is 69.01. 3. After receiving his test results, Woodring challenged the scoring of some of the questions on the examination. At hearing, Woodring challenged the following questions: Part I - Questions 3 and 16; Part III - Questions 7, 8 and Petitioner also challenged the exam format and procedures. He asserts that provisions were not made for his learning disabilities or physical handicaps. Petitioner gave the answer "D" as the correct answer for Question 3 on Part I of the examination. The Department established at hearing that the question contained all of the information necessary to make the required computations and that "B" was the correct answer. Petitioner did not demonstrate entitlement to credit for his incorrect answer to that question. During the test, he made a mathematical error when he calculated the cost of the program and a second mathematical error when he projected the savings. As a result, he arrived at the wrong answer. Petitioner marked "B" as the correct answer to Question 16 on Part I. The Department established at hearing that the correct answer is "C". The answer given by Petitioner was erroneous. He admitted at hearing that he had used the wrong table in the Circular E withholding chart from the Internal Revenue Service reference material. During his reading of the problem, he had confused "biweekly" and "semimonthly." Petitioner did not demonstrate entitlement to credit for his incorrect answer on that question. On Question 7 on Part III, Petitioner marked "D" as the correct answer. In reaching that result, Petitioner correctly calculated the amount of liquidated damages that would occur if the contractor decided to wait during a delay period on the delivery of his original tile order. Petitioner's response to the question was based on this calculation. The calculation of the liquidated damages was a preliminary calculation in a larger, more complex problem. Petitioner was required to also calculate the cost of the more expensive tile which could be delivered on time, and determine if the use of this tile would be less expensive to him or her than waiting on the delayed delivery of the less expensive tile. The question was unambiguous, and the exam materials contained all of the information necessary for completion of the problem. The Department established at hearing that the correct answer was "B". Petitioner failed to comprehend that he was to mitigate the costs to a contractor from the tile delay by determining if the immediate use of the more expensive tile would be less costly to a contractor than the anticipated liquidated damages. The flaw was in Petitioner's reading comprehension of this problem as opposed to a flaw in the challenged question. As a result, Petitioner is not entitled to credit for his answer. The correct answer for Question 8 on Part III is "C". Petitioner gave "A" as the correct answer. When Petitioner did his calculations of the material and labor costs for the creation of the concrete driveway, he used only the descriptions of material and labor costs charted in the problem. He did not apply this information to the additional information set forth in the Residential Plans and specifications. The problem directed the examinees to refer to the Residential Plans and specifications when solving this problem. These documents contained the data needed to calculate the area of the driveway. Petitioner's failure to apply the information provided in the plans resulted in the underestimation of the area of the driveway by over 33 percent. This significant difference was what caused Petitioner to select the wrong answer to the exam question. The Department established at hearing that the correct answer was "C". The question was unambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to credit for the answer he gave to this question. The correct answer for Question 13 of Part III is "A". Petitioner marked "D" as the proper response. A review of the Residential Plans and specifications shows that the structure did not contain any forty x one x four trusses. Therefore, no time was required for the lifting and placing of trusses of this size. In arriving at his answer, Petitioner failed to determine the size of the trusses he was counting on the Residential Plans. If he had properly read the plans, he would have seen that there were no trusses of this size, according to the specifications. By failing to size the trusses on the plan, Petitioner came to an incorrect answer. He is not entitled to credit for the answer given because he did not demonstrate competence in reading and interpreting plans, as required by the question. During the application process, all exam candidates are advised in writing that the Department will provide special assistance to candidates with learning disabilities or physical handicaps to the ultimate extent possible. The burden is on the exam candidate to timely request the special assistance and to obtain the prerequisite certification of handicaps. Petitioner did not notify the Department of his handicaps in the manner set forth in the Candidate Booklet provided to him during the application process. If proper certifications had been provided prior to the last two testing sessions, the Department could have made a decision as to whether the test instrument and test administrative procedures should have been modified on Petitioner's behalf. The Petitioner, who now understands that Certifications of Handicaps are necessary, has had such certifications of handicap completed since the February 1991 examination. The Department was not under a duty to discover Petitioner's handicaps nor was it required to make provisions for those handicaps in the testing process without prior receipt of the necessary information. No provisions were made for Petitioner's handicaps during the October 1990 and February 1991 testing sessions. At hearing, Petitioner established he was deaf and did not understand verbal instructions and time warnings during the aforementioned testing sessions. This situation adversely affected his performance on both occasions.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: The Department should enter a Final Order which denies Petitioner's challenges to Part I - Questions 3 and 16; Part III - Questions 7, 8 and 13. Petitioner's request for certification without a demonstration of competency through successful completion of the exam should also be denied. Prior to any reexamination, the proper prerequisite certifications should be given to the Department by Petitioner so that special assistance can be given, if needed. The Joint Exhibit and Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 6 should remain sealed and not open to public inspection. Any other exhibits or file documents marked confidential should also remain sealed. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 15th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE Nos. 91-1883 & 91-2692 Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. 2. Accepted. See HO #2. 3. Accepted. See HO #3. 4. Accepted. 5. Accepted. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted. See HO #6. 8. Accepted. 9. Accepted. 10. Accepted. See HO #16. 11. Accepted. See HO #18. 12. Accepted. 13. Accepted. See HO #22. 14. Accepted. 15. Accepted. 16. Accepted. See HO #23. 17. Accepted. 18. Accepted. See HO #8. 19. Accepted. See HO #9 and #10. 20. Accepted. 21. Accepted. 22. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Copies furnished: VYTAS J URBA ESQ ASST GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION NORTHWOOD CENTRE STE 60 1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399-0792 RON WOODRING 38219 PALMGROVE DR ZEPHYRHILLS FL 33541 LEONARD M ERNEST MA ED HILLSBOROUGH COMMUNITY COLLEGE DALE MABRY CAMPUS/INTERPRETER TRAINING PROGRAM PO BOX 30030 TAMPA FL 33630-3030 DANIEL O'BRIEN/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD 111 EAST COASTLINE DR - RM 504 PO BOX 2 JACKSONVILLE FL 32202 JACK McRAY ESQ/GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION NORTHWOOD CENTRE - STE 60 1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with the duty of regulating general contractors in the State of Florida. An applicant for certification as a general contractor must pass the examination administered by Respondent as a prerequisite to certification. Section 489.113(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner sat for the certified general contractor's examination on October 14-15, 1988. Petitioner did not pass Part I of the examination. Petitioner scored the highest score one can score on Part I without passing that part of the examination. While Petitioner received a grade of 69 on Part I of the examination, a grade in excess of 69 is required to pass. Had Petitioner been awarded any credit for his answers to the challenged questions, he would have passed Part I of the examination. Petitioner timely challenged the grading of four examination questions contained in Part I of the examination for which he received no credit, to wit: Question 5, Question 26, Question 32, and Question 39. Petitioner's challenges were as to the format of the question or as to the grading of the question. Petitioner abandoned any challenge he may have had to other questions. Each of the challenged questions is an objective, multiple choice question. The candidate is required to choose the correct response from among four possible answers. Prior to taking the examination, Petitioner was told by Respondent that certain approved reference materials were used in formulating the examination questions and that certain reference materials could be used during the examination. Question 5 provided certain information from which the candidate was to determine the correct answer to an accounting problem. The question contained sufficient information to correctly answer the problem. The evidence does not support Petitioner's contention that this question is unfairly tricky. The accounting formula which was necessary to determine the correct answer to the problem was available to Petitioner in the reference material he was permitted to use during the examination. Respondent gave Petitioner no credit for his answer to Question 5 because Petitioner gave the wrong answer to the question. Question 26, required the candidate to correctly answer a question about a reporting requirement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The question contained sufficient information to determine the correct response. The basis of Petitioners challenge to this question is that the information needed to answer the question was not contained in the reference material published by OSHA. The information needed to arrive at the correct response is contained in other reference material Petitioner was permitted to use during the examination. Respondent gave Petitioner no credit for his answer to Question 26 because Petitioner gave the wrong answer to the question. Petitioner contends that two of the four responses to Question 32, which involved statements as to partnerships, are correct and that he should be given credit for his response to the question. Petitioner made unwarranted assumptions in arriving at his answer which resulted in his answer being incorrect. The question contained only one correct response. The question provided sufficient information to enable Petitioner to arrive at the correct response through the use of the reference materials that the candidates were permitted to use. Respondent gave Petitioner no credit for his answer to Question 32 because Petitioner gave the wrong answer to the question. Petitioner contends that two of the four responses to Question 39, which involved statements about workers compensation, are correct and that he should be given credit for his response to the question. Petitioner made unwarranted assumptions in arriving at his answer which resulted in his answer being incorrect. The question contained only one correct response. The question provided sufficient information to enable Petitioner to arrive at the correct response through the use of the reference materials that the candidates were permitted to use. Respondent gave Petitioner no credit for his answer to Question 39 because Petitioner gave the wrong answer to the question. None of the candidates who sat for the examination, including Petitioner, was awarded partial credit for an incorrect response.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing bindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, enter a final order which finds that Petitioner abandoned his challenges to all questions except Question 5, Question 26, Question 32, and Question 39 and which denies Petitioner's challenges to Question 5, Question 26, Question 32, and Question 39. It is further recommended that the questions filed as exhibits in this proceeding be sealed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of January, 1990. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4934 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed finding of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in material part by paragraph 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are adopted in material part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in material part by paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 6-9 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Dirk Douglas Summerlot, pro se 16146 75th Avenue North Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 Robert G. Harris, Esquire Qualified Representative Department of Professional 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 69 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Jenny Lancett (Petitioner) is entitled to additional credit for the answers she provided to challenged examination questions. The Petitioner has challenged the State Officers Certification Examination (SOCE) for Law Enforcement Officers given in July of 2005 (DOAH Case No. 05-4544) and September of 2005 (DOAH Case No. 06-0325).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an applicant for certification as a law enforcement officer. In order to be eligible to sit for the state examination, the Petitioner successfully completed an academy course that was sponsored by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. To become fully certified, the Petitioner must take and achieve a passing score on the SOCE. The Petitioner took the SOCE on July 27, 2005, but did not pass. She also took the SOCE on September 21, 2005, and did not pass. The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering examinations for certification for the SOCE. After the July and September examinations for the SOCE were administered and the Petitioner received failing scores, she requested and attended examination review sessions conducted at the Respondent’s headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida. The review sessions were held at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Petitioner was given copies of the examination questions for which she did not provide the correct answers. The Petitioner was not told the correct answers. As to the July examination, the Petitioner timely challenged Questions 45, 56, 90, 141, 151, 156, 161, 163, 207, 227, 234, 238, and 242. That examination challenge was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 14, 2005, and was designated as DOAH Case No. 05- 4544. The Petitioner withdrew her challenge to Question 238. As to the September examination, the Petitioner timely challenged Questions 44, 63, 134, 160, 162, 165, 166, 178, 189, 194, 195, and 208. That examination challenge was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 26, 2006, and was assigned DOAH Case No. 06-0325. On February 3, 2006, in response to the Joint Motion to Consolidate, the cases were consolidated for formal hearing and rescheduled for hearing to March 21-22, 2006. The case was heard on April 5, 2006. As to each challenged examination, the applicant must answer 250 questions and achieve at least 180 correct answers. Twenty-five questions of the 250 do not count but are considered “throw-away” questions. All questions are posed in English. All questions are multiple choice and an applicant is given credit for only the correct answer. The Respondent deems the correct answer to be the best choice from among the options offered. The Petitioner is an Hispanic female who reads, writes, and speaks English. Although she inquired about accommodations, the Petitioner was not afforded any accommodations while taking the challenged examinations based upon English as her non-native language. The Commission requires that all applicants take the examination in English. Similarly, accommodations are not afforded applicants who maintain “test anxiety” as a basis for concern. All questions and answers for the challenged examinations are considered confidential as a matter of law. As to each of the questions challenged by the Petitioner, the Petitioner failed to select the correct and best option from the multiple-choice selections noted. As to each of the questions challenged by the Petitioner, the wording and options noted are clearly stated and are within the curriculum covered by the academy. Of the numerous Hispanic candidates who have successfully completed the Palm Beach County academy during Mr. Kozyra’s tenure, only two have failed to achieve a passing score on the SOCE within three attempts. The Petitioner submitted no credible evidence to support her claim that the answers she provided on the challenged examination questions were correct or that the questions in their wording or grading were flawed. The persuasive weight of the evidence was to the contrary. A question which asks the applicant to provide a response that is “most accurately” describing the situation (as did Question 56 on the July examination) means that of the choices offered only one can be considered “most accurate.” If the applicant chooses an answer that is not the “most accurate,” credit is not given. Many of the Petitioner’s responses fell into this type of erroneous response. The Petitioner simply failed to provide the “most accurate” from the selections offered. As to each of the selections chosen by the Petitioner, a clear majority of the applicants taking the examinations selected the correct option. None of the examinations questions challenged by the Petitioner were incorrectly answered by a majority of the applicants. In some instances as many as 94 percent of the test takers chose the correct answer whereas the Petitioner did not. The Respondent provided sufficient explanation and the record clearly establishes that as to each of the erroneous answers provided by this Petitioner, the correct answer (as scored by the Respondent) was the best or correct answer. The Petitioner cannot be entitled to additional credit when her answers were not correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner’s challenges to the July and September 2005 certification examinations be denied. S DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 28th day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bruce A. Minnick, Esquire Minnick Law Firm Post Office Box 15588 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5588 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an experienced and successful alarm system contractor licensed in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Petitioner sought licensure as an alarm system contractor in Florida and sat for the Alarm System II Contractor's Examination administered by Respondent in January 1992. Applicants for licensure as alarm system contractors must pass the examination to be qualified for licensure. Petitioner's final grade on the examination was 70, but the minimum passing grade was 75. Petitioner did not pass the examination and, consequently, he was denied licensure. All challenged questions were multiple choice questions and the candidates were to select the best answer from the four possible answers provided. Candidates were allowed to use approved source materials during this open book examination. Petitioner challenged Questions #1, 17, 18, 19, and 76 because the content of each question pertained to accounting. For the reasons to be discussed in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order, Petitioner's contention that accounting questions should not be included on the examination is rejected. The answer Petitioner selected for Question #1 was not the best answer to the question. Consequently, Petitioner was properly denied credit for his response to Question #1. The answer Petitioner selected for Question #17 was not the best answer to the question. Consequently, Petitioner was properly denied credit for his response to Question #17. The answer Petitioner selected for Question 18 was the best answer for the question, and he was awarded appropriate credit for that correct answer. The answer Petitioner selected for Question #19 was not the best answer to the question. Consequently, Petitioner was properly denied credit for his response to Question #19. The answer Petitioner selected for Question 76 was the best answer for the question, and he was awarded appropriate credit for that correct answer. Petitioner challenged Question #6 contending that the question was badly worded and that there were three possible answers to the question. Petitioner selected answer "B" as his answer to the question, but argued at hearing that answers "A", "B", or "C" are also correct answers. Respondent asserts that answer "C" is the best answer to the question. Petitioner failed to establish that Question #6 was impermissibly vague or that Respondent's determination that answer "C" was the best answer to the question was devoid of logic or reason. The answer Petitioner selected for Question #6 was not the best answer to the question. Consequently, Petitioner was properly denied credit for his response to Question #6. Petitioner challenged Question #23. The answer Petitioner selected for Question #23 was not the best answer to the question. Consequently, Petitioner was properly denied credit for his response to Question #23. Petitioner challenged Question #25 on the basis that the question was a trick question and that there were three possible answers to the question. Petitioner selected answer "B" as his answer to the question, but argued at hearing that answers "A", "B", or "C" are also correct answers. Respondent asserts that answer "A" is the best answer to the question. Petitioner established that his answer to the question was as correct as the answer selected by Respondent as the best answer to the question. Consequently, Petitioner was improperly denied credit for his response to Question #25. Petitioner challenged Question #78 and argued that the source material upon which Respondent based its answer is obsolete. Petitioner chose answer "A" while Respondent asserts that answer "D" is the best answer to the question. Respondent's answer appears in "Design Applications of Security Fire Alarm Systems", a reference book to which the candidates were permitted to refer while taking the examination. While Petitioner was very critical of this reference book, he failed to establish that Respondent could not rely on the book or that the determination by Respondent that answer "D" was the best answer to the question was devoid of logic or reason. Petitioner failed to establish that Question #78 was an improper question or that he was entitled to credit for his answer to the question. At the formal hearing, Petitioner raised for the first time a challenge to Question #83, a question pertaining to the use of coaxial cable. Petitioner contends that because alarm system contractors do not routinely use coaxial cable, the question is improper and should be thrown out. Petitioner concedes that the information necessary to correctly answer the question was in the resource material to which the candidates were permitted to refer while taking the examination and that he gave the wrong answer to the question. Petitioner failed to establish that Question #83 pertained to an improper subject or that he was entitled to credit for his response to the question. Petitioner challenged Question #98. After the examination was administered, the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board rejected this question from every candidate's examination as being outside the scope of practice. Consequently, that question was not a factor in the scoring of Petitioner's examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which awards Petitioner credit for his answer to Question #25, but which denies him additional credit for his answers to the other challenged questions. It is further recommended that the examination questions and Petitioner's Exhibit 6 pertaining to certain of the examination questions be sealed as confidential exhibits. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4924 The post-hearing submittal filed by Petitioner consists of argument and suggestions as to measures the Respondent should take to improve the examination, but does not contain proposed findings of fact that require a ruling from the undersigned. The proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Trillo 800 Jeffrey Street Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Department Of Professional Regulation Electrical Contractors Licensing Board 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive credit for his answers to certain examination questions on the State Officer Certification Examination ("SOCE") administered November 11, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Commission is the state agency charged with the responsibility for administering officer certification examinations and for establishing "standards for acceptable performance on each officer certification examination." § 943.1397(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). The SOCE is a multiple-choice examination, and there are four answer choices for each question. Mr. Page was a certified police officer in New Jersey for approximately three and one-half years before moving to Florida. Pursuant to Section 943.13(9), Florida Statutes (2004), Mr. Page was not required to attend a full six-months' basic recruit training program because of his background in law enforcement. Mr. Page did, however, attend a two-week, 80-hour state-certified training program in preparation for taking the SOCE, and he was provided a loose-leaf notebook containing written course materials. The course materials reflect the Commission's curriculum, and these materials are provided to the training institution, which is responsible for copying the materials and providing them to the students. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 47 is "C"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 47 describes the statutory elements of a crime, and the examination candidate must choose the answer that identifies the crime fitting the statutory elements set forth in the body of the question. Question 47 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as a moderately easy question; the correct answer was included among the answer choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 55 is "D"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 55 describes a scenario, and the answer choices set forth various actions a law enforcement officer could take under the circumstances described. The examination candidate is asked to choose the appropriate action. Question 55 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as a moderately difficult question; the correct answer was included among the answer choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 63 is "D"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 63 describes the actions of a person, and the answer choices set forth conclusions a law enforcement officer could draw from these actions. The examination candidate is asked to choose the appropriate conclusion. Question 63 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as a difficult question3; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 159 is "B"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 159 requires the examination candidate to fill in the blank in the body of the question. The examination candidate must choose the answer that accurately completes the statement contained in the body of the question. Question 159 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as a moderately easy question; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 195 is "A"; Mr. Page chose answer "B." Question 195 describes an activity in which a law enforcement officer might engage, and the examination candidate is asked to choose the answer that best describes the consequences of the officer's engaging in such an activity. Question 195 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as an easy question; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 248 is "B"; Mr. Page chose answer "C." Question 248 describes a scenario, and the answer choices set forth various actions a law enforcement officer could take under the circumstances described. The examination candidate is asked to choose the answer describing the appropriate action. Question 248 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and is classified as an easy question; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 251 is "C"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 251 describes a scenario, and the answer choices provide various actions a law enforcement officer could take under the circumstances described. The examination candidate is asked to choose the appropriate action. Question 251 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and is classified as a moderately easy question; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. The specific curriculum materials referred to by the Commission as supporting what it deemed to be the correct answers to questions numbered 47, 63, 159, and 195, were not included in the loose-leaf notebook provided to Mr. Page as part of the 80-hour training program in which he participated prior to taking the SOCE.4 These omissions are not sufficient of themselves, however, to justify giving Mr. Page credit for his answers to these four questions. Because Mr. Page failed to establish either that the questions were ambiguous or that the answers he gave on the examination questions were correct, he is not entitled to credit for his answers to these questions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order dismissing the challenge of Jason R. Page to the scoring of his answers on the SOCE administered on November 11, 2004. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 28th day of June, 2005.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations set forth in the Respondent's letter to the Petitioner dated February 16, 2004, are correct.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to statute, the Florida Department of Education has developed and administers the Florida Teacher Certification Examination. A Florida teacher seeking certification as an educator by the State of Florida must obtain a passing score on the exam. In November 2003, the Petitioner applied to take the Teacher's Professional Education Test on January 24, 2004. The Petitioner signed the registration application on November 13, 2003, acknowledging that she agreed to the provisions set forth in the exam application materials. The Respondent received the Petitioner's signed application on November 17, 2003. The instruction sheet contained in the exam application materials provides in relevant part that examinees may not "communicate with other examinees in any way" or "give or receive assistance from other examinees," and states that related violations will result in the examination being "voided." Approximately two weeks prior to the exam, the Respondent sent a letter to all registrants. The Petitioner received a copy of the letter. In the letter, the Respondent outlined behaviors regarded as cheating, and specifically identified cheating to include "looking, or attempting to look, at the examination answers, responses, or other materials of another examinee." Prior to exam administration, supervisors and proctors received a Test Administration Manual and received instruction on identification of "cheating" or "suspected cheating," including observation of an examinee looking or attempting to look at another examinee's test materials or answer sheet. As to cheating, the Test Administration Manual sets forth the procedure to be followed by a supervisor or proctor who observes or suspects cheating is occurring, and provides in relevant part as follows: If a room supervisor who observes cheating activity, or to whom cheating activity is reported by a room proctor, is reasonably certain that cheating is taking place based on the clarity, duration, or vantage point of the observations, whether or not another individual can confirm the observation, the room supervisor shall collect the examinee's examination materials; inform the examinee that he or she will not be allowed to complete that examination or participate in any further testing on that examination administration date; make notes of the identity of those involved or in a position to have observed or been aware of the activity and the relative locations in, and other pertinent features of, the examination room; at the conclusion of the testing time, quietly request examinees who were not involved in but were in a position to have observed or been aware of the cheating to come to a private office or other appropriate location to be interviewed by, and give a statement to the room supervisor; and prepare a full written report of the incident, including as attachments all witnesses' statements and other pertinent documents or tangible items and make the report part of the Room Supervisor's Irregularity Report. Suspected cheating - If a room supervisor reasonably suspects that cheating activity is occurring but cannot be certain, even after conferring with one or more other individuals, that a cheating activity is taking place, the room supervisor shall continue to make observations and quietly notify a room proctor to continue to make observations of the suspicious activity; follow steps c, d, and e in number 3 above; and include in the Irregularity Report a notation that the answer folder of the examinee suspected of cheating should be analyzed in connection with the circumstances described in the report. During the exam administration on January 24, 2004, a supervisor present in the room where the Petitioner was located observed the Petitioner staring at the answer sheet of another person (identified as "Rekha"), who was also taking the exam. Rekha was seated to the left and slightly ahead of the Petitioner in the exam room. At the hearing, the supervisor described the Petitioner's suspicious behavior as "constant staring" and "noticeable concentration" towards Rekha's answer sheet. At the time the room supervisor observed the Petitioner's behavior, the test period was drawing to a close. Many examinees had already completed their work and left the room. By the time the supervisor saw the Petitioner's behavior, there were no other examinees in position to observe the Petitioner. After the exam ended, the supervisor compared the Petitioner's answer sheet with that of Rekha, and observed that there were a number of erasures and answer changes on the Petitioner's answer sheet that matched Rehka's answers. The supervisor completed an "Irregularity Report" dated January 24, 2004, in which he wrote: I witnessed Shagufa constantly looking at Rekha's answer sheet, in about the last 30 minutes of test. I compared answer sheets afterwards and noticed several answer changes on Shagufa's sheet to what was on Rekha's. The irregularity report and the answer sheets were submitted to the Respondent for further review. After the Respondent received the materials, the Respondent assigned Dr. Cornelia Orr, an expert in test response analysis, to review the answer sheets. Dr. Orr testified persuasively at the hearing and her testimony is credited. Dr. Orr compared the exam score for the Petitioner (referred to as Examinee A) with that of Rekha (referred to as Examinee B) and determined that their scores were "very similar." Dr. Orr reviewed the erasures on the answer sheets and determined that there were 27 erasures on the Petitioner's answer sheet. There were four erasures on Examinee B's sheet. Of the Petitioner's 27 erasures, 18 were changed from incorrect to correct answers and matched the answers of Examinee B. An additional four answers were changed from correct to incorrect answers and matched incorrect answers of Examinee B. Dr. Orr reviewed the incorrect answers on both sheets and determined that the Petitioner missed 54 questions, that Examinee B missed 48 questions, and that 30 of the Petitioner's incorrect responses matched the incorrect answers of Examinee B. Dr. Orr described the incidence of corresponding incorrect answers on the two answer sheets as "highly unusual." After concluding her review of the two answer sheets, Dr. Orr then analyzed the answers and scores of the 3,747 persons who took the test on the same day to determine the correlations between all examinees to Examinees A and B's answers. For all examinees, the average number of wrong answers corresponding to those of Examinee B was nine, as compared to the Petitioner's 30 incorrect answers which matched those of Examinee B. Based on Dr. Orr's review and evaluation, she determined that the chance probability of the Petitioner's high number of incorrect answers corresponding to those of Examinee B was one in 33,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a Final Order voiding the score of Shagufa Mubarik on the January 24, 2004, Professional Education Test. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 14th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Shagufa Mubarik 2426 Island Club Way Orlando, Florida 32822 Scott J. Odenbach, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable Jim Horne, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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 Donald A. Moyant, Petitioner, operates a contractors' exam school in Brandon, Florida, at which he preps builders to take the CILB exam for licensure as contractors. Petitioner took the exam given in June 1985 and received a score of 58.60. A score of 70.00 is required to pass this examination. The only answer that Petitioner questions is the answer he supplied to question No. 2, which related to the number of reinforcing bars required in a concrete slab of given dimensions and spacings of the bars. In Petitioner's solution to the problem he dropped the fractional bar that resulted from dividing the length of the slab by the spacing between bars. The correct solution requires the addition of a bar for this fractional spare. Petitioner's purpose in pursuing this proceeding is to obtain information to use in his Contractors Exam School, Inc. Since he would not have passed the examination even if his solution to question No. 2 had been marked correct, Petitioner is without standing to bring this action because he is doing so on behalf of the school he runs and not to allow him to receive a passing grade.
Findings Of Fact In April, 1988, Petitioner sat for the examination given by Respondent to become certified in Florida as a Professional Engineer. Petitioner received a failing grade on the examination. Petitioner received a score of 46 where a score of 48 was necessary to pass the examination. Following notification that he had failed the examination, Petitioner filed a timely challenge to question 275 of the examination, contending that he had been given inadequate credit for his answer. A perfect answer to question 275 was worth 10 points. When Petitioner's answer to question 275 was first graded, Petitioner was awarded a score of 2 points. At Petitioner's request, his answer to question 275 was reevaluated. As a result of the reevaluation, Petitioner was awarded an additional two points for his answer to question 275, so that the total points awarded Petitioner for his answer to question 275 was 4 points of the possible 10 points. Petitioner contends that he should be awarded at least six points for his answer to question 275. The examination questions were prepared by the National Council of Engineering Examiners, which prepares examination questions for a number of states, including the State of Florida. Question 275 required the applicant to answer the question by assuming certain data and by applying a certain formula. The question required the applicant to give the answer and to show how he arrived at the answer. The final answer to the question given by Petitioner was the correct answer to the question. However, in coming to his answer, Petitioner did not use the formula required by the question and he did not properly utilize the information given by the question. The answer given by Petitioner to question 275 of the examination was only partially correct. The score Petitioner received for his partially correct answer was not arbitrarily or capriciously awarded.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, enter a final order which denies Petitioner's challenge to question 275 of the examination. It is further recommended that the exhibits filed in this proceeding be sealed. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3254 The rulings on the proposed findings submitted on behalf of Petitioner in his letter filed September 5, 1989, are as follows: The proposed findings contained in the first paragraph of the letter are rejected as being unsupported by the record and as being argument. The proposed findings contained in the second paragraph of the letter are rejected as being contrary to the evidence presented at the formal hearing. The proposed findings contained in the third and fourth paragraphs are rejected as being argument The rulings on the proposed findings contained in Respondent's Proposed recommended order are as follows: The proposed findings contained in the first paragraph are accepted in substance. See Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the recommended order. The proposed findings contained in the second paragraph are rejected as being contrary to the evidence. See Paragraph 2 of the recommended order. The proposed findings contained in the third paragraph are accepted in substance. See Paragraph 3 of the recommended order. The proposed findings contained in the fourth paragraph are accepted in substance. See Paragraph 4 of the recommended order. The proposed findings contained in the fifth paragraph are rejected as being subordinate to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in the sixth paragraph are rejected as being subordinate to the conclusions reached and as being the recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Francisco A. Lee 3885 Edgar Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida 33436 E. Harper Field, Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, - General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
