01-000100 Christine Franklin vs. Florida Engineers Management Corporation
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Monday, April 16, 2001.


View Dockets  
Summary: Applicant failed to demonstrate that her failing score on engineering licensure examination was the product of arbitrary or otherwise improper or erroneous grading.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8CHRISTINE FRANKLIN , )

11)

12Petitioner , )

14)

15vs. ) Case No. 01-0100

20)

21FLORIDA ENGINEERS MANAGEMENT )

25CORPORATION , )

27)

28Respondent. )

30_________________________________)

31RECOMMENDED ORDER

33Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in this case in

44accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on March 6,

532001, by video teleconference at sites in Fort Lauderdale and

63Tallahassee, Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly-designated

71Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

79Hearings.

80APPEARANCES

81For Petitioner : Christine Franklin, pro se

884285 Pine Ridge Court

92Weston, Florida 33331

95For Respondent: Douglas Sunshine, Esquire

100Florida Engineers Management Corporation

1041308 Hays Street

107Tallahassee, Florida 32301

110STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

114Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her

123solution to Problem 120 on the Principles and Practice of

133Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination

140administered on April 14, 2000, by the National Council of

150Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.

155PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

157By letter dated December 15, 2000, to the Florida Board of

168Professional Engineers (Board), Petitioner requested a "formal

175hearing" to contest the failing score (68) that she had received

186on the April 14, 2000, Principles and Practice of Engineering

196portion of the engineering licensure examination administered by

204the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.

213In her letter, Respondent stated that she was specifically

222challenging the score she received on Problem 120, claiming she

232should have received at least eight points (out of a possible

243ten) for her solution to this problem.

250On January 9, 2001, the Board referred the matter to the

261Division of Administrative Hearings (Division) for the

" 268assign[ment of] an Administrative Law Judge to conduct a

277hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes."

284As noted above, the hearing was held on March 6, 2001. At

296the hearing, Petitioner testified on her own behalf, and Frank

306Hutchinson, P.E., testified (as an expert) on behalf of

315Respondent. No other testimony was presented. In addition to

324Petitioner's and Mr. Hutchinson's testimony, a total of ten

333exhibits (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and Respondent's Exhibits 1

341through 9) were offered and received into evidence.

349At the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the

358hearing, the undersigned announced, on the record, that post-

367hearing submittals had to be filed no later than ten days

378following the date of the filing of the transcript of the

389hearing. The hearing Transcript (consisting of one volume) was

398filed on March 30, 2001.

403Petitioner and Respondent timely filed their post-hearing

410submittals on March 16, 2001, and April 4, 2001, respectively.

420These post-hearing submittals have been carefully considered by

428the undersigned.

430FINDINGS OF FACT

433Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record

443as a whole, the following findings of fact are made:

4531. On April 14, 2000, as part of her effort to obtain a

466Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles

474and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is

482a national examination developed and administered by the

490National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors

498(NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering.

5072. Petitioner received a raw score of 46 on the

517Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw

525score of 46 converts to a score of 68. To pass the Examination,

538a converted score of 70 is needed.

5453. Petitioner formally requested that her solution to

553Problem 120 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's

561written request was referred to the NCEES.

5684. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solution to

576Problem 120 resulted in her receiving no additional points.

5855. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or

595about December 5, 2000.

5996. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated

607December 14, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board

616referred the matter to the Division.

6227. Problem 120 was worth ten raw points.

6308. Petitioner received six raw points for her solution to

640Problem 120.

6429. In her solution to Problem 120, Petitioner failed to

652properly take into consideration the height of the water table,

662did not compute the factor of safety for load-bearing capacity

672in the manner required, and made an arithmetic mistake.

681Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of

690the NCEES's scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score

701that she could have received for her solution to this problem

712was a six, which is the score she received.

72110. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem,

729the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments":

737The examinee made three errors. The

743solution approved by the Civil Engineering

749Exam committee called for a correction in

756requirement (a) for the mid height water

763table. The examinee ignored this

768correction. A two point grade reduction is

775called for. The examinee made a numerical

782error in evaluating the bearing capacity

788equation. This error called for a one point

796grade reduction. In evaluating the factor

802of safety the examinee added an erroneous

809load factor. A two point grade reduction is

817called for.

819With a total of five grade points lost a

828final grade of six is called for.

835SCORER'S RECOMMENDATION:

837Recommended score = six

841There has been no showing that the rescorer's analysis was in

852any way flawed.

855CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

85811. A person seeking to become licensed by the Department

868of Business and Professional Regulation (Department) to practice

876engineering in the State of Florida must take and pass a

887licensure examination (provided that person is not entitled to

896licensure by endorsement). Sections 471.013 and 471.015,

903Florida Statutes.

90512. The required examination is described in the Board's

914Rules 61G15-21.001 and 61G15-21.002, Florida Administrative

920Code, which provide, in pertinent part, as follows:

92861G15- 21.001 Written Examination

932Designated; General Requirements.

935(1 ) The Florida Board of [Professional]

942Engineers hereby determines that a written

948examination shall be given and passed prior

955to any applicant receiving a license to

962practice as a professional engineer . . . .

971The examination shall be provided by the

978National Council of Examiners for Engineers

984and Surveyors ( NCEES). 1/ The examination

991consists of two parts, each of eight hours.

999Candidates are permitted to bring certain

1005reference materials, slide rules and certain

1011calculators. A list of approved reference

1017materials and calculators will be provided

1023to all candidates prior to each examination.

1030All materials including pens and pencils are

1037to be furnished by the applicant. National

1044examination security requirements as set

1049forth by the NCEES shall be followed

1056throughout the administration of the

1061examination. . . .

106561G15- 21.002 Areas of Competency and

1071Grading Criteria.

1073(1 ) The Engineering Fundamentals

1078Examination shall include all questions and

1084problems on subjects normally connected with

1090the basic fundamentals of engineering

1095education. The topics which will usually be

1102treated in this section are as follows :

1110mathematics, mathematical modeling of

1114engineering systems, nucleonics and wave

1119phenomena, chemistry, statistics, dynamics,

1123mechanics of materials, fluid mechanics,

1128thermodynamics/heat transfer, computer

1131programming, electrical circuits, statics,

1135structure of matter, engineering mechanics,

1140electronics and electrical machinery.

1144(2 ) Part two of the examination shall be

1153based on Professional Practice and

1158Principles and shall be devoted primarily to

1165the field of the applicant's finding

1171solutions to problems designed to test the

1178applicant's ability to apply acceptable

1183engineering practice to problems which are

1189representative of his discipline.

1193Applicants for registration must select one

1199of the listed specializations in which to be

1207examined. The Board may also authorize

1213examinations in other engineering

1217disciplines when the Board determines that

1223such disciplines warrant the giving of a

1230separate examination in terms of cost

1236effectiveness and acceptability in the

1241profession of engineering.

1244(3 ) In Part Two of the examination the

1253applicant will usually be required to solve

1260from seven to ten problems which the

1267applicant may choose from approximately

1272twenty problems drawn from a test pattern

1279generally set forth as follows: . . . .

1288(b ) Civil/Sanitary -- Highway, Structural,

1294Sanitary Planning, Fluids, Soils, Economics,

1299Water Control and Resources, Treatment

1304Facility Design, Fluid Flow Hydraulics,

1309Planning Analysis, System Design, Chemical-

1314Bio Problems, Materials Sections, and

1319Economics. . . .

132313. The Board's Rules 61G15-21.003 and 61G15-21.004,

1330Florida Administrative Code, address the grading of the

1338licensure examination. These rules provide, in pertinent part,

1346as follows:

134861G15- 21.003 Grading Criteria for the Essay

1355Portion of Examination.

1358(1 ) Insofar as the essay portion of the

1367examination is not machine graded the Board

1374deems it necessary to set forth the

1381following guidelines upon which grades for

1387the essay portion shall be based. Grades on

1395the essay portion of the examination will be

1403based upon the application of good

1409engineering judgment, the selection and

1414evaluation of pertinent information and the

1420demonstration of the ability to make

1426reasonable assumptions when necessary.

1430Answers may vary due to assumptions made.

1437Partial credit will normally be given if

1444correct fundamental engineering principles

1448are used, even though the answer may be

1456incorrect. All grading will be done by an

1464expert committee provided by the national

1470testing service supplying the examination.

14752/

1476(2 ) An applicant must follow all pertinent

1484instructions on the examination booklet and

1490the solution pamphlet. The applicant shall

1496indicate which problems he has solved and is

1504submitting for credit in the designated

1510boxes on the front cover of the solution

1518pamphlet. If an applicant fails to indicate

1525which problems he is submitting for credit

1532in the designated boxes, only the first four

1540problems worked in said pamphlet shall be

1547graded.

154861G15- 21.004 Passing Grade. . . .

1555(2 ) A passing grade on Part Two of the

1565examination is defined as a grade of 70 or

1574better. The grades are determined by a

1581group of knowledgeable professional

1585engineers, who are familiar with engineering

1591practice and with what is required for an

1599applicable engineering practice and with

1604what is required for an applicable

1610engineering task. These professional

1614engineers will establish a minimum passing

1620score on each individual test item (i.e.,

1627examination problem). An Item Specific

1632Scoring Plan (ISSP) will be prepared for

1639each examination item based upon the NCEES

1646standard scoring plan outline form. An ISSP

1653will be developed by persons who are

1660familiar with each discipline including the

1666item author, the item scorer, and other

1673NCEES experts. On a scale of 0-10, six (6)

1682will be a minimum passing standard and

1689scores between six (6) and ten (10) will be

1698considered to be passing scores for each

1705examination item. A score of five (5) or

1713lower will be considered an unsatisfactory

1719score for that item and the examinee will be

1728considered to have failed that item. To

1735pass, an examinee must average six (6) or

1743greater on his/her choice of eight (8) exam

1751items, that is, the raw score must be forty-

1760eight (48) or greater based on a scale of

1769eighty (80). This raw score is then

1776converted to a base 100 on which, as is

1785noted above, a passing grade will be seventy

1793(70).

179414. The Board's Rule 61G15-21.006, Florida Administrative

1801Code, provides that "[e ]xam review procedures are governed by

1811rule 61-11.017, F.A.C." and that "[a]ll reviews of answers,

1820questions, papers, grades, and grading key shall be at a

1830mutually convenient time and subject to national testing

1838security requirements in order to insure the integrity of the

1848examination."

184915. Rule 61-11.017, Florida Administrative Code, is a

1857Department rule which provides, in pertinent part, that

"1865[r ]eview of examinations developed by or for a national

1875council, association, society (herein after referred as national

1883organization) shall be conducted in accordance with national

1891examination security guidelines."

189416. In the instant case, after receiving a failing score

1904on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the

1914NCEES-administered and graded engineering licensure examination

1920and not receiving any additional points upon subsequent review

1929and rescoring, Petitioner requested a "formal hearing" to

1937contest her failing score.

194117. The Board (acting through the Florida Engineers

1949Management Corporation, a Florida not-for-profit corporation

1955created pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes, "to

1963provide administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial

1968services" to the Board) granted Petitioner's request for a

1977hearing and referred the matter to the Division for hearing.

198718. In those instances where a State of Florida licensing

1997board or agency is empowered to alter a candidate's failing

2007examination score, the candidate is entitled to a hearing,

2016pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to contest his or her

2027failing score. At the hearing, the candidate bears the burden

2037of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his or

2048her failing score was the product of arbitrary or otherwise

2058improper or erroneous grading. See Harac v. Department of

2067Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture , 484 So. 2d 1333,

20761338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)("Ordinaril y one who fails a licensure

2088examination would shoulder a heavy burden in proving that a

2098subjective evaluation by an expert is arbitrary."); Florida

2107Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Career

2115Service Commission , 289 So. 2d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th

2124DCA 1974)("[T ]he burden of proof is on the party asserting the

2137affirmative on an issue before an administrative

2144tribunal. . . . 'As a general rule the comparative degree of

2156proof by which a case must be established is the same before an

2169administrative tribunal as in a judicial proceeding--that is,

2177[a] preponderance of the evidence. It is not satisfied by proof

2188creating an equipoise, but it does not require proof beyond a

2199reasonable doubt.'"); and Section 120.57(1)(j), Florida Statutes

2207("Findings of fact shall be based upon a preponderance of the

2219evidence, except in penal or licensure disciplinary proceedings

2227or except as otherwise provided by statute, and shall be based

2238exclusively on the evidence of record and on matters officially

2248recognized.").

225019. Petitioner failed to submit such proof in the instant

2260case.

226120. According to Petitioner, the two-point deduction that

2269was made for the manner in which she evaluated the factor of

2281safety for load-bearing capacity in her solution to Problem 120

2291was unwarranted and she should have received a raw score of

2302eight, instead of six, for her solution to the problem (which

2313would have given her a passing score on the Examination).

232321. In support of her allegation, Petitioner presented her

2332own testimony (which she was free to do notwithstanding her

2342interest in the outcome of the case). See Martuccio v.

2352Department of Professional Regulation , 622 So. 2d 607, 609-10

2361(Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

236522. Respondent countered Petitioner's testimony with the

2372testimony of an independent expert witness, Frank Hutchinson,

2380P.E., a knowledgeable Florida-licensed engineer with

2386considerable engineering experience and impressive credentials.

239223. Having carefully reviewed Problem 120, Petitioner's

2399solution to the problem, and the requirements and guidelines of

2409the NCEES's scoring plan for the problem, the undersigned agrees

2419with Mr. Hutchinson that Petitioner failed to calculate the

2428factor of safety for load-bearing capacity in the manner

2437required by the problem and that therefore the two-point

2446deduction about which Petitioner complains was justified.

245324. Moreover, even if Petitioner had persuaded the

2461undersigned that she should have received a higher score from

2471the NCEES for her solution to Problem 120, the undersigned would

2482still not recommend that the Board grant Petitioner the relief

2492she is seeking in this case. This is because the Examination is

"2504an examination developed by or for a national board, council,

2514association, or society," within the meaning of the Department's

2523Rule 61-11.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, and, pursuant to

2531that rule provision, the Board must "accept the development and

2541grading of such [an] examination without modification." See

2549also Department Rule 61-11.010(1)(a), Florida Administrative

2555Code ("National Examinations shall be graded solely and

2564exclusively by the National examination provider or its

2572designee. National examinations shall include those developed

2579by or for national boards, councils, associations or

2587societies."); and Board Rule 61G15-21.003(1), Florida

2594Administrative Code ("All grading will be done by an expert

2605committee provided by the national testing service supplying the

2614examination.").

261625. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner's challenge to

2625the score she received from the NCEES for her solution to

2636Problems 120 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering

2645portion of the April 14, 2000, engineering licensure examination

2654should be rejected.

2657RECOMMENDATION

2658Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

2668Law, it is

2671RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting

2679Petitioner's challenge to the failing score she received from

2688the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion

2698of the April 14, 2000, engineering licensure examination.

2706DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2001, in

2716Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

2720___________________________________

2721STUART M. LERNER

2724Administrative Law Judge

2727Division of Administrative Hearings

2731The DeSoto Building

27341230 Apalachee Parkway

2737Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

2740(850) 488- 9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

2745Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

2749www.doah.state.fl.us

2750Filed with the Clerk of the

2756Division of Administrative Hearings

2760this 16th day of April, 2001.

2766ENDNOTES

27671/ A licensing board within the Department of Business and

2777Professional Regulation, such as the Board of Professional

2785Engineers, is authorized by Section 455.217(1)(d), Florida

2792Statutes, to "approve by rule the use of any national

2802examination which the department has certified as meeting

2810requirements of national examinations and generally accepted

2817testing standards pursuant to department rules." A "national

2825examination," as that term is used in Section 455.217, Florida

2835Statutes, is defined in Rule 61-11.015, Florida Administrative

2843Code, as follows:

2846(1) . . . . To ensure compliance, the

2855following definition of a national

2860examination shall be applied when using a

2867national examination.

2869(2 ) A national examination is an

2876examination developed by or for a national

2883professional association, board, council or

2888society (hereinafter referred to as

2893organization) and administered for the

2898purpose of assessing entry level skills

2904necessary to protect the health, safety and

2911welfare of the public from incompetent

2917practice.

2918(a ) The purpose of the examination shall be

2927to establish entry level standards of

2933practice that shall be common to all

2940practitioners.

2941(b ) The practice of the profession at the

2950national level must be defined through an

2957occupational survey with a representative

2962sample of all practitioners and professional

2968practices.

2969(c ) The examination for licensure must

2976assess the scope of practice and the entry

2984skills defined by the national occupational

2990survey.

2991(3 ) The national organization must be

2998generally recognized by practitioners across

3003the nation in the form of representatives

3010from the State Boards or shall have

3017membership representing a substantial number

3022of the nation's practitioners who have been

3029licensed through the national organization

3034examination.

3035(4 ) The national organization shall be the

3043responsible body for overseeing the

3048development and scoring of the national

3054examination.

3055(5 ) The national organization shall provide

3062security guidelines for the development and

3068grading of the national examination and

3074shall oversee the enforcement of these

3080guidelines.

30812/ Pursuant to the Department's Rule 61-11.010(1)(a), Florida

3089Administrative Code, "National Examinations shall be graded

3096solely and exclusively by the National examination provider or

3105its designee."

3107COPIES FURNISHED:

3109Christine Franklin

31114285 Pine Ridge Court

3115Weston, Florida 33331

3118Douglas Sunshine, Esquire

3121Florida Engineers Management Corporation

31251208 Hays Street

3128Tallahassee, Florida 32301

3131Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director

3136Florida Engineers Management Corporation

31401208 Hays Street

3143Tallahassee, Florida 32301

3146Hardy L. Roberts III, General Counsel

3152Department of Business and Professional Regulation

3158Northwood Centre

31601940 North Monroe Street

3164Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

3167NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3173All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

318315 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions

3194to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that

3205will issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 08/02/2001
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2001
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2001
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2001
Proceedings: Recommended Order issued (hearing held March 6, 2001) CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2001
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying hearing record referred to the Agency sent out.
PDF:
Date: 04/04/2001
Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
Date: 03/30/2001
Proceedings: Transcript filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2001
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order for Case No. 01-100 (filed by C. Franklin via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 03/07/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Exhibit 1 (filed via facsimile).
Date: 03/06/2001
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames.
PDF:
Date: 03/01/2001
Proceedings: Letter to B. Ladrie from T. Baker In re: exhibits, Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2001
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Video Teleconference issued. (hearing scheduled for March 6, 2001; 2:00 p.m.; Fort Lauderdale and Tallahassee, FL, amended as to video, location, and time).
PDF:
Date: 02/07/2001
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing issued (hearing set for March 6, 2001; 1:00 p.m.; Fort Lauderdale, FL).
PDF:
Date: 02/07/2001
Proceedings: Respondent`s Witness and Exhibit List (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2001
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 01/24/2001
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued.
PDF:
Date: 01/24/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference issued (video hearing set for February 12, 2001; 9:00 a.m.; Fort Lauderdale and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2001
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 01/10/2001
Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
Date: 01/09/2001
Proceedings: Confidential Licensure Examination documents (filed via facsimile).
Date: 01/09/2001
Proceedings: Request for Formal Administrative Hearing (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 01/09/2001
Proceedings: Agency referral (filed via facsimile).

Case Information

Judge:
STUART M. LERNER
Date Filed:
01/09/2001
Date Assignment:
03/02/2001
Last Docket Entry:
08/02/2001
Location:
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
District:
Southern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (5):

Related Florida Rule(s) (6):