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
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to four problems on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 30, 1998, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 30, 1998, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 45 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 45 converts to a score of 67. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested (in writing, by letter dated March 26, 1999) that his solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 222 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to Natalie Lowe of the Board, who forwarded it to the NCEES. Appended to Petitioner's letter to Ms. Lowe were two pages of "scratch paper" on which Petitioner had written during his post-examination review on March 19, 1999. On the first page were written comments he had made regarding the scoring of Problems 120 and 125. On the second page were the following written comments he had made regarding the scoring of Problems 220 and 222: 220 a, b, & c 2 parts b & c correct. Min. mark I should get[:] At least 5 instead of 2 and maybe 7. There is an error. 222 ok The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 222 resulted in his receiving a raw score of 43 (or a converted score of 65, 5 points less than he needed to pass the Examination). The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on May 12, 1999. The Board subsequently referred the matter to the Division to conduct an administrative hearing. At the administrative hearing that was held pursuant to the Board's referral, Petitioner challenged the grading of his solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 220 of the Examination, and indicated that he had "no dispute concerning the grading of [his solution to Problem] 222," notwithstanding that he had requested, in his March 26, 1999, letter to Ms. Lowe, that his solution to Problem 222 be rescored. Petitioner explained that he had made this request as a result of inadvertence and that he had actually intended to seek rescoring of his solution to Problem 220, not Problem 222. Problems 120, 125, and 222 were worth ten raw points each. Problem 120 contained four subparts (or requirements). Petitioner initially received four raw points for his solution to Problem 120. Rescoring did not result in any change to this score. Petitioner solved two subparts of Problem 120 correctly (subparts (a) and (b)). The solutions to the other two subparts of Problem 120 (subparts (c) and (d)), however, were incorrect inasmuch as Petitioner had neglected, in making the lateral force calculations and drawing the diagrams required by these subparts, to include the force attributable to the movement of the groundwater referred to in the problem. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a four, which is the score he received. Problem 125 contained three subparts (or requirements). Petitioner initially received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 125. Upon rescoring, no change was made this raw score. Petitioner correctly solved only one of the three subparts of Problem 125 (subpart (c)). In his solution to subpart (a) of Problem 125, Petitioner did not provide, as required by this subpart, the quantities of water, cement, and aggregate necessary for the project described in the problem. Petitioner's solution to subpart (b) did not describe one of the acceptable slump increasing methods that the candidates were required describe in their solution to this subpart. Accordingly, giving Petitioner a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 125 was consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 220. He did not request, in his March 26, 1999, letter to Ms. Lowe, a rescoring of his solution to this problem, and, as a result, his solution was not rescored. At the administrative hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf regarding the scoring of this solution and, during his testimony, contended that the score he received was too low; however, neither a copy of the problem, nor a copy of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, was offered into evidence. Accordingly, the record is insufficient to support a finding that the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 220 was undeservedly low in light of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. Petitioner initially received a raw score of eight for his solution to Problem 220. Rescoring resulted in this score being reduced two points to a six. Petitioner did not present any evidence supporting the position (which he advances in his Proposed Recommended Order) that he should have received a higher score for his solution to this problem, and, consequently, Respondent's expert, in his testimony at hearing, did not address the matter. While there were exhibits offered (by Respondent) and received into evidence relating to the scoring of Petitioner's solution to Problem 222, it is not apparent from a review of these exhibits that such scoring deviated from the requirements of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem (which was received into evidence as part of Respondent's Exhibit 12).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 30, 1998, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1999.
The Issue The issues presented are whether check marks that Respondent placed on the test booklets of some students during the second day of a Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test violated Subsections 1008.24(1)(c) and 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.042(1)(c), (d), and 6B-1.006(3)(a), (b), (d), and , (4)(b), and (5)(a), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against the teaching certificate of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No 484481 (teaching certificate). Respondent is certified to teach physical education through June 30, 2009. The Hillsborough County School District (District) has employed Respondent as a physical education teacher for 10 years. In March 2004, the District employed Respondent as a physical education teacher at Gorrie Elementary School (Gorrie). At Gorrie, Respondent proctored the math and science portions of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) for some fifth grade students sometime in March 2004. Ms. Jacquelyn Cross was the teacher and test administrator for the class. As a proctor, Respondent's responsibilities during the FCAT were minimal. Respondent was responsible to assist the test administrator and to be available in the event of an emergency. It is undisputed that during the second day of testing Respondent made check marks in the test booklets of some students. The check marks coached the affected students during the FCAT test in violation of Subsection 1008.24(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Neither Petitioner nor the legislature has defined the term "coach" for the purpose of the cited statute. Nor did Petitioner adduce evidence to support a finding that the definition is a matter within the scope of agency expertise. The plain and ordinary meaning of the term "coach," in relevant part, is to "train or tutor" a student. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 353 (4th ed. Houghton Mifflin Company 2000) (American Heritage). Respondent tutored the affected students because the check marks had the effect of instructing the affected students. American Heritage at 1860. Respondent "knowingly or willfully" coached the affected students in violation of Subsection 1008.24(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Respondent intended a check mark to signal a student that the student should reread the particular question or passage. No aggravating factors are evidenced in the record. However, several mitigating factors are in evidence. For reasons discussed hereinafter, no finding is made that Respondent had actual knowledge that her actions violated the relevant statute. The evidence to support such a finding is less than clear and convincing. Similarly, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(d), (e), (4)(b), and (5)(a), respectively, by intentionally suppressing or distorting subject matter relevant to a student's academic program, intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, intentionally distorting or misrepresenting facts concerning an educational matter in direct or indirect public expression, or by failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent received any training from either her employer or Petitioner in how to proctor an FCAT. Gorrie administrators assigned Respondent to proctor approximately a week before the scheduled test. During the first day of testing, the test administrator walked through the classroom and pointed to incorrect answers recorded by some of the students. The test administrator also used verbal prompts such as, "you obviously haven't read that passage," and "you need to go back and reread that." During the second day, Respondent followed the example set by the test administrator during the first day of the FCAT and chose check marks as a means of prompting the students to recheck their answers. The test administrator had received training in the administration of the FCAT. Respondent's reliance on the example of the test administrator was reasonable under the circumstances. Nothing in the record shows that the check marks made by Respondent on the test booklets intentionally distorted or misrepresented facts concerning an educational matter within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(4)(b). Respondent would not accept similar assistance from a proctor during a test Respondent was taking and was concerned about the actions she took during the second day of testing. That night during a class attended by Respondent, she asked a peer if the actions of the test administrator and Respondent were appropriate. The peer stated the actions were inappropriate and explained that Respondent could be disciplined for her actions. When Respondent proctored the FCAT on the third day of testing, Respondent did not coach the examinees. Another teacher reported to the assistant principal that some of the students proctored by Respondent had received assistance during the FCAT. When the assistant principal questioned Respondent, Respondent freely admitted her actions, but denied that she knew at the time that her actions were inappropriate. Nothing in the record shows that Respondent failed to maintain honesty in all her professional dealings within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a). Although Respondent had proctored the FCAT in previous years, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent had received any training in how to proctor an FCAT. Respondent's name does not appear on the sign-in sheet for the FCAT training session in March of 2003. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent did anything in previous years except follow the lead of the test administrator. Respondent did not receive a copy of the 2004 FCAT test manual. Gorrie administrators did not ask Respondent to read the manual or instruct Respondent as to its contents. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the check marks provided by Respondent were a material violation. It is less than clear and convincing that the check marks altered or interfered with the responses of the affected students within the meaning of Subsection 1008.24(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Although some test booklets showed changes in student answers, it is less than clear and convincing that any check mark by Respondent caused a student to change his or her answer. None of the affected students testified. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's actions affected the answers of examinees, no finding is made that Respondent assisted examinees in answering test questions in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.042(1)(c). For the same reasons, no finding is made that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A- 10.042(1)(d) and 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (b), respectively, by interfering with an examinee's answers to questions, failing to make a reasonable effort to protect examinees from conditions harmful to learning, or unreasonably restraining a student from independent action in his or her pursuit of learning. Nothing in the record shows that the check marks on test booklets were intended to suppress or distort subject matter within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(d). Gorrie administrators invalidated the test results of the 15 students in the test administrator's class. However, the invalidation of those tests did not invalidate the FCAT as a whole and did not prevent students with invalidated results from progressing to a higher grade. It is less than clear and convincing that the violation committed by Respondent was an act of "moral turpitude" or "gross immorality" within the meaning of Subsection 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). No rule applicable to the discipline of a teaching certificate defines the quoted terms. However, rules applicable to teacher dismissal proceedings provide definitions that are instructive. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the violation was a base, vile, or depraved act within the meaning of moral turpitude in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(6). Nor did the violation satisfy the definition of immorality in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2). In relevant part, the violation did not impair Respondent's service in the community. It is clear and convincing that Respondent continues to be an effective employee of the District within the meaning of Subsection 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2003). Although Respondent's employer issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent, suspended her without pay for two days, and transferred Respondent to a different school, the District continues to employ Respondent. The testimony of District personnel, including fellow teachers and parents, makes it clear that Respondent has been and continues to be an effective teacher. Although the incident received attention in two newspaper articles, the articles are not in evidence, and no finding can be made concerning the adverse effect of the publicity. For similar reasons, no finding is made that the check marks on test booklets violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e) by intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. None of the affected students testified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of coaching students in violation of Subsection 1008.24(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), not guilty of the remaining charged violations, issuing a written reprimand to Respondent, and requiring Respondent to complete relevant training before proctoring another FCAT. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 21st day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E 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 issue in this case is whether Petitioner should receive credit for any or all of the four challenged questions from the State Officers Certification Examination (“SOCE” or “Exam”).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner attended law enforcement proficiency training and was provided with 76 hours of instruction. Petitioner was instructed from the 2018 versions of the law enforcement and high liability textbooks. Respondent utilized experienced field training officers, curriculum development staff, and advisory teams to develop curriculum and corresponding examination questions for the SOCE. The questions are evaluated and validated through a process that includes internal and external review for content and accuracy and are field tested as non-graded questions a minimum of 100 times in actual exams for further validation and statistical data collection prior to use on graded exams. When examinees sit for the SOCE, they are informed prior to beginning the Exam that the questions and answers are derived solely from the curriculum and that there is only one correct answer for each question. Petitioner took and failed the Exam three times: on April 4, 2019; April 17, 2019; and July 25, 2019. Petitioner obtained a raw score of 149 correct answers out of a total of 190 graded questions on his third and final attempt on July 25, 2019. A passing score for the Exam is 80 percent, which requires a minimum of 152 correct answers. In order to pass the Exam, Petitioner would need credit for at least three more questions added to his score. Petitioner challenged a total of four multiple-choice questions. Respondent provides each examinee who fails to achieve a passing score the opportunity to review and challenge any question for which he or she did not receive credit. Exam questions challenged by examinees are reviewed by subject-matter experts from advisory teams, and credit is awarded when warranted. The review process strictly addresses the accuracy of the examination questions as they relate to the training curriculum. If credit is awarded, thereby invalidating a challenged exam question, that question is removed from use in all future exams. Each of the four exam questions at issue was challenged by Petitioner and reviewed by Respondent. Following the review process for each of the four challenged questions, no additional credit was awarded. Respondent upheld the validity and accuracy of each of the four questions and answers as originally scored in accordance with the exam key as having no other possible correct answers based on the curriculum. With respect to Question One: Methamphetamine Laboratory, examinees were asked to select which of four statements about such laboratories is accurate. Petitioner chose answer A. for Question One, based on his reasoning that it stated that methamphetamine labs produce an odor similar to bleach and that the training materials mention bleach in the relevant section. Petitioner’s selection of answer A. is based on a misreading of the training materials. The clear language of Question One dictates a single correct answer, which is directly based on the training curriculum. The curriculum describes a range of sizes for how small or large a methamphetamine lab may be, which is reflected verbatim in answer B. The correct answer to Question One is B., consistent with Respondent’s answer key. With respect to Question Two: Battery by a First Responder, examinees were asked to determine what crime an officer could be charged with based on a hypothetical wherein the officer provided first aid to a person without consent. Petitioner chose answer D., stating that the question was open to interpretation because it did not state whether the officer actually touched the person in the hypothetical. Petitioner’s answer was based on the assumption of elements of a negligence claim that were not presented in the question. The clear language of Question Two dictates a single correct answer, which is directly based on the training curriculum. The curriculum states that first responders may be charged with battery for rendering emergency care without the patient’s consent, which is accurate to the hypothetical described in Question Two and reflected in Answer A. The correct answer to Question Two is A., consistent with Respondent’s answer key. With respect to Question Three: First Aid, examinees were asked to select which step a first-aid provider should take first when trying to stop a specified type of bleeding. Petitioner chose answer B., which Petitioner stated was described in the curriculum as a step to be used to control bleeding. Although the step Petitioner chose was described as a step to be used to control bleeding in the curriculum, it was not listed as the first step. The clear language of Question Three dictates a single correct answer, which is directly based on the training curriculum. The curriculum lists, in order, what steps a first-aid provider should take to control bleeding. The first step listed in the curriculum is reflected in answer D. The correct answer to Question Three is D., consistent with Respondent’s answer key. With respect to Question Four: Sexual Harassment, examinees were presented with a hypothetical exchange between two officers and then prompted to select which type of sexual harassment was demonstrated in the hypothetical. Petitioner chose answer D., based on his opinion that the question was poorly worded, leaving the answer open for interpretation. Petitioner did not cite to any portion of the training curriculum as a basis for his selection of answer D. The clear language of Question Four dictates a single correct answer, which is directly based on the training curriculum. The curriculum specifically states that a conversation of the type described in Question Four’s hypothetical is verbal sexual harassment, as reflected in answer A. The correct answer to Question Four is A., consistent with Respondent’s answer key.
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 rejecting Petitioner’s challenge to the failing score he received on the July 25, 2019, SOCE. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER 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 March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Lester Blount 6025 Wedgewood Village Circle Lake Worth, Florida 33463 (eServed) Christopher David Bufano, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 (eServed) Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 (eServed) Jason Jones, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 (eServed) Dean Register, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her solution to Problem 120 on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on April 14, 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 14, 2000, as part of her effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 46 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 46 converts to a score of 68. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested that her solution to Problem 120 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was referred to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solution to Problem 120 resulted in her receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about December 5, 2000. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated December 14, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problem 120 was worth ten raw points. Petitioner received six raw points for her solution to Problem 120. In her solution to Problem 120, Petitioner failed to properly take into consideration the height of the water table, did not compute the factor of safety for load-bearing capacity in the manner required, and made an arithmetic mistake. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES's scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that she could have received for her solution to this problem was a six, which is the score she received. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee made three errors. The solution approved by the Civil Engineering Exam committee called for a correction in requirement (a) for the mid height water table. The examinee ignored this correction. A two point grade reduction is called for. The examinee made a numerical error in evaluating the bearing capacity equation. This error called for a one point grade reduction. In evaluating the factor of safety the examinee added an erroneous load factor. A two point grade reduction is called for. With a total of five grade points lost a final grade of six is called for. SCORER'S RECOMMENDATION: Recommended score = six There has been no showing that the rescorer's analysis was in any way flawed.
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 she received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the April 14, 2000, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2001, 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 16th day of April, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent has been a Florida-certified teacher. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent has taught chemistry at Coral Gables Senior High School (CGSHS), which is a school operated by the Miami-Dade County School Board (School Board). Respondent is a dedicated educator who has a passion for teaching. On Saturday, October 7, 2000, the mathematics portion of the High School Competency Test (HSCT) was administered at CGSHS. 2/ The HSCT is a standardized statewide examination that students must pass to qualify for a regular high school diploma. 3/ It contains multiple choice questions testing basic skills in reading/communications and mathematics. It has been administered since the 1980's and has always been a "secure" test. There are approximately three or four "editions" of the mathematics portion of the HSCT. 4/ Having to replace one of these "editions" because of a breach of security would entail "significant cost." Respondent was one of the test administrators at CGSHS on October 7, 2000. She had served as a HSCT test administrator five or six times prior to October 7, 2000. Prior to the administration of the test on October 7, 2000, Respondent had been provided training at CGSHS on how to properly discharge her responsibilities as a test administrator. The importance of maintaining test security was emphasized during the training. As part of the training, Respondent received a packet of written materials. It was Respondent's responsibility to read these materials. The training materials repeatedly warned that test administrators were not to open the test booklets. Included in the materials was the version of the "Florida Test Security Statute," Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, in effect prior its amendment by Chapter 97-190, Laws of Florida, 5/ and the version of "Florida Test Security Board of Education Rule," Rule 6A-10.042, Florida Administrative Code, that has been in effect since October 26, 1994. The pre-Chapter 97-190 version of Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, provided as follows: It is unlawful for anyone knowingly and willfully to violate test security rules adopted by the State Board of Education or the Commissioner of Education for mandatory tests administered by or through the State Board of Education or the Commissioner of Education to students, educators, or applicants for certification or administered by school districts pursuant to s. 229.57, or, with respect to any such test, knowingly and willfully to: Give examinees access to test questions prior to testing; Copy, reproduce, or use in any manner inconsistent with test security rules all or any portion of any secure test booklet; Coach examinees during testing or alter or interfere with examinees' responses in any way; Make answer keys available to examinees; Fail to follow security rules for distribution and return of secure test as directed, or fail to account for all secure test materials before, during, and after testing; Fail to follow test administration directions specified in the test administration manuals; or Participate in, direct, aid, counsel, assist in, or encourage any of the acts prohibited in this section. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both. A district superintendent of schools, a president of a community college, a president of a university, or a president of a private postsecondary institution shall cooperate with the Commissioner of Education in any investigation concerning the administration of a test administered pursuant to state statute or rule. Rule 6A-10.042, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: Maintenance of Test Security Tests implemented in accordance with the requirements of Sections 229.053(2)(d), 229.57, 231.087, 231.0861(3), 231.17, 233.011, 239.301(10), 240.107(8), and 240.117, Florida Statutes, shall be maintained and administered in a secure manner such that the integrity of the tests shall be preserved. Test questions shall be preserved in a secure manner by individuals who are developing and validating the tests. Such individuals shall not reveal in any manner, verbally or in writing, the test questions under development. Tests or individual test questions shall not be revealed, copied, or otherwise reproduced by persons who are involved in the administration, proctoring, or scoring of any test. Examinees shall not be assisted in answering test questions by any means by persons administering or proctoring the administration of any test. Examinees' answers to questions shall not be interfered with in any way by persons administering, proctoring, or scoring the examinations. Examinees shall not be given answer keys by any person. Persons who are involved in administering or proctoring the tests or persons who teach or otherwise prepare examinees for the tests shall not participate in, direct, aid, counsel, assist in, or encourage any activity which could result in the inaccurate measurement or reporting of the examinees' achievement. Each person who has access to tests or test questions during the development, printing, administration, or scoring of the tests shall be informed of specifications for maintaining test security, the provisions in statute and rule governing test security, and a description of the penalties for breaches of test security. During each test administration, school district and institutional test administration coordinators and contractors employing test administrators and proctors shall ensure that required testing procedures are being followed at all test administration sites. Officials from the Department are authorized to conduct unannounced observations of test administration procedures at any test administration site to ensure that testing procedures are being correctly followed. Test materials, including all test booklets and other materials containing secure test questions, answer keys, and student responses, shall be kept secure and precisely accounted for in accordance with the procedures specified in the examination program administration manuals and other communications provided by the Department. Such procedures shall include but are not limited to the following: All test materials shall be kept in secure, locked storage prior to and after administration of any test. All test materials shall be precisely accounted for and written documentation kept by test administrators and proctors for each point at which test materials are distributed and returned. Any discrepancies noted in the number or serial numbers of testing materials received from contractors shall be reported to the Department by designated institutional or school district personnel prior to the administration of the test. In the event that test materials are determined to be missing while in the possession of an institution or school district, designated institutional or school district personnel shall investigate the cause of the discrepancy and provide the Department with a report of the investigation within thirty (30) calendar days of the initiation of the investigation. At a minimum, the report shall include the nature of the situation, the time and place of occurrence, and the names of the persons involved in or witness to the occurrence. Officials from the Department are authorized to conduct additional investigations. In those cases where the responsibility for secure destruction of certain test materials is assigned by the Department to designated institutional or school district personnel, the responsible institutional or school district representative shall certify in writing that such destruction was accomplished in a secure manner. In those cases where test materials are permitted by the Department to be maintained in an institution or school district, the test materials shall be maintained in a secure manner as specified in the instructions provided by the Department. Access to the materials shall be limited to the individuals and purposes specified by the Department. In those situations where an employee of the educational institution, school district, or contractor, or an employee of the Department suspects a student of cheating on a test or suspects other violations of the provisions of this rule, a report shall be made to the department or test support contractor, as specified in the test administration procedures, within ten (10) calendar days. The report shall include a description of the incident, the names of the persons involved in or witness to the incident, and other information as appropriate. Officials from the Department are authorized to conduct additional investigations. (4) Violations of test security provisions shall be subject to penalties provided in statute and State Board Rules. Notwithstanding the instructions she had been given (both verbally and in writing), towards the end of the testing period on October 7, 2000, when there were only a few students remaining in Respondent's classroom, Respondent took an "unsealed" 6/ test booklet that a student had handed in, sat down at her desk, looked at the test questions and multiple choice answers in the booklet, and wrote down (on the back of a piece of paper that contained an assignment for a course that she was taking at Florida International University) the numbers of some questions (Questions 1 through 16, 30, 31, 35, 38, 43, 45, 50, 53, and 56 through 60), and, next to each number, what she believed to be the correct (letter) choice for that item. 7/ Respondent was motivated, not by any evil intent, but by mere intellectual curiosity. She simply wanted to see whether the Factor-Label method she had touted to her chemistry students as the best way to solve stoichiometry problems could also be used by them to answer the mathematics questions on the test. She had no intention whatsoever to disseminate, or in any way reveal, to anyone any of the questions on the test or any of her answers to these questions or to otherwise use in a dishonest manner the information she obtained by looking inside the test booklet contrary to the instructions she had been given. To be sure, in failing to follow these directions, Respondent exercised poor judgment 8/; but her actions certainly do not reflect a lack of integrity, good morals, or honesty on her part. Maria Cristina Noya, an educational specialist in the School Board's assessment and educational testing office, monitored the administration of the HSCT at CGSHS (and other schools) on October 7, 2000, to make sure that there were no breaches of security. When she walked into Respondent's classroom, she saw Respondent at her desk engaging in the conduct described above. As Ms. Noya approached, Respondent got up from her seat, with the test booklet in her hand, and greeted Ms. Noya. She did not try to hide from Ms. Noya that she was looking at an open test booklet. Ms. Noya left Respondent's classroom without discussing with Respondent Respondent's non-compliance with test administration protocol. Ms. Noya notified her supervisor, Ada Fernandez- Vicaria, the administrator of the School Board's assessment and educational testing office, of what she had observed in Respondent's classroom. Pursuant to Ms. Fernandez's directive, Respondent was asked to leave the classroom 9/ and go to the office of one of the assistant principals at the school, Dr. Lisa Robertson (who was in charge of the testing at CGSHS that day). Respondent thought that she was going to be admonished for sitting at her desk and not getting up to monitor the activities of the students in her classroom. When she left her classroom to go to Dr. Robertson's office, Respondent took with her the aforementioned piece of paper on which she had written the numbers of certain test questions and her answers to those questions. She did so, not because she intended to make use of what she had written on the paper, but because the other side of the paper had information (unrelated to the test) that she needed. Upon her arrival at Dr. Robertson's office, Respondent discovered that she was summoned to the office to discuss her actions in examining the contents of the test booklet and writing down answers to test questions. At the meeting, Respondent freely admitted that she had engaged in such conduct and turned over to the administrators at the meeting 10/ the piece of paper on which she had written her test answers. Ms. Fernandez-Vicaria placed the paper in a manila envelope, which she sealed with tape placed across the flap. She took the sealed envelope with her when she left the meeting and kept it in her possession until she turned it over to an investigator with the state Department of Education. Respondent subsequently received a letter of reprimand from the principal of CGSHS for her actions on October 7, 2000. Furthermore, she was prohibited from serving as a test administrator until further notice. A "school site investigation" did not reveal that "any students had benefited" from Respondent's non-compliance with test security requirements and therefore no test results had to be voided as a result of Respondent's actions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the EPC issue a final order dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2002, 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 9th day of September, 2002.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to three problems on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 29, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 29, 1999, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in mechanical engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the mechanical engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested (in writing, by letter dated March 13, 2000) that his solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to the Board's "Legal Section," which forwarded it to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 resulted in his receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about April 25, 1999. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated May 3, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problems 141, 144, and 147 were worth ten raw points each. Petitioner received four raw points for his solution to Problem 141. In his solution to Problem 141, Petitioner failed to take into consideration bending stresses and loads. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a four, which is the score he received. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 144. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": A correct solution [to this problem] must include an energy balance on the open feedwater heater to determine the fraction of flow through turbine T1 that is extracted and taken to the open feedwater heater. a correct equation for determining the specific work developed by the two turbines on the basis of one pound entering turbine T1. The equation the examinee has written assumes the same flow through both turbines. determination of the mass rate of flow (m1) at the inlet to turbine T1. This is determined by dividing the net power by the specific net work. determining the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. finally, dividing the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator by the heating value times 0.75 with the appropriate conversion factors. The examinee has used the new power (200 MW or 200 x 105)as the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. This is incorrect. The scoring plan states 2 RUDIMENTARY KNOWLEDGE . . . OR-(3) determines tons/day = Wnet/7650, Wnet = (h1 - h2) + (h3 - h4) This is what the examinee has done. Based on the scoring plan and the above analysis, a score of 2 is recommended. There has been no showing that the foregoing "analysis" was in any way flawed or that application of the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem should have resulted in Petitioner receiving a raw score higher than two for his solution to Problem 144. Petitioner received a raw score of four for his solution to Problem 147. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee used an incorrect temperature difference in [his] calculation of the heat transferred by convection and radiation from the outer surface of the pipe. Most of the examinee's work for requirement (b) was not needed. In doing that unnecessary work, however, [he] made two significant errors: 1. [He] evaluated a radiation exchange between the steam inside the pipe and the environment surrounding the pipe. The pipe shields the environment surrounding the pipe from the steam. 2. The examinee's equation "Total heat Loss = Conductive + Radiation" is not satisfactory. In attempting to evaluate the heat transfer from the insul[a]ted pipe, [he] assumed that the outer surface heat transfer coefficient was very high; 3.0 is not high. The examinee made no attempt to evaluate the payback period for the insulation. There has been no showing that the foregoing analysis was in any way flawed. For the errors made by Petitioner in his solution to Problem 147, a 50% "grade reduction" was warranted pursuant to the "error analysis" portion of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. 1/ The remaining portions of the scoring plan for Problem 147 provided as follows: 10: Essentially complete and correct solution. May have one or two minor math, data, or chart reading errors. . . . Grade of 8: A grade of 8 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 10% and 50%. A Grade of 6: A grade of 6 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 30% and 50%. Grade of 4: 2/ A grade of 4 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 50% and 70%. Grade of 2: A grade of 2 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 70% and 90%. Grade of Zero: Nothing presented that warrants a grade of at least 10%. It is unclear from a reading of the NCEES scoring plan for Problem 147 whether a grade reduction of 50% should result in a raw score of four or six. The plan is ambiguous in this regard. While it may be reasonable to interpret the plan as requiring that a raw score of six be given where there is a grade reduction of 50%, the plan is also reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that a 50% grade reduction should result in a raw score of four, the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 147. It therefore cannot be said that the scoring of his solution to this problem was inconsistent with the problem's scoring plan, as reasonably construed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 29, 1999, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 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 13th day of October, 2000.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Andrea Latson, should be granted an exemption from disqualification from employment, pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Andrea M. Latson, became subject to the screening requirements of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, by obtaining employment in a day care facility for children. As a result of the screening process, it was discovered that the Petitioner had a criminal history which disqualified her from employment in such a facility. The Petitioner was advised of the disqualification, and was also advised that she could seek an exemption from the disqualification. The Petitioner promptly requested an exemption from disqualification. Following an informal hearing, the Petitioner's request for exemption was denied. The Petitioner timely requested an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is disqualified by reason of pleading guilty to each of four separate charges of sale of cocaine, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. Each of those violations was a felony.3 The Petitioner's guilty pleas were entered on or shortly before October 12, 1994. The criminal offenses to which the Petitioner pled guilty took place during January and February of 1994. The Petitioner provided very little in the way of information about her rehabilitation since the disqualifying crimes to which she pled guilty. She appears to be making progress towards achievement of a high school equivalency certificate, but did not provide any details regarding her efforts to improve her education. She does not appear to appreciate the seriousness of her disqualifying crimes, nor does she appear to be remorseful about them. To the contrary, the Petitioner displays a tendency to minimize her responsibility for those crimes and to attempt to shift the blame for those crimes to the circumstances in which she found herself at the times she committed the disqualifying crimes. None of the information provided by the Petitioner indicated that she had made any significant progress towards rehabilitation. Quite to the contrary, since the disqualifying crimes, the Petitioner, by fraudulent means, obtained at least $3,639.00 in public assistance money to which she was not entitled. On November 22, 1996, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with public assistance fraud in violation of Section 409.325(1), Florida Statutes.4 The Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the charge. The Petitioner has done very little to pay back the fraudulently received funds.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying the exemption that the Petitioner has requested. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1999.
