10-000054 Tyronda Hobbs vs. Criminal Justice Standards And Training Commission Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, April 9, 2010.

Summary: A preponderance of the evidence does not support Petitioner's challenge to any of the ten contested exam questions.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

TYRONDA HOBBS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 10-0054

)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND )

TRAINING COMMISSION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Daniel Manry conducted the

final hearing of this case for the Division of Administrative

Hearings (DOAH) on February 24, 2010, by video teleconference in

Tallahassee and Orlando, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: TyRonda Hobbs, pro se

1515 Windridge Circle

Sanford, Florida 32773

For Respondent: Grace A. Jaye, Esquire

Department of Law Enforcement

Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to

credit for 14 challenged examination questions in the State

Officers Certification Examination (SOCE) for Law Enforcement

Officers.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner took the SOCE for the third time on

September 30, 2009. Respondent denied Petitioner's challenge to

14 exam questions, Petitioner requested a final hearing, and

Respondent referred the request to DOAH to conduct the final

hearing.

At the hearing, Petitioner testified, presented the

testimony of one other witness, and submitted one composite

exhibit for admission into evidence. Respondent called three

witnesses and submitted one composite exhibit for admission into

evidence.

The identity of the witnesses and exhibits and the rulings

regarding each are reported in the Transcript of the hearing

filed with DOAH on March 10, 2010. Respondent timely filed its

proposed recommended order (PRO) on March 16, 2010. Petitioner

did not file a PRO.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner challenged 14 questions after failing the

SOCE for the third and final time on September 30, 2009. The

challenged questions are numbered 32, 62, 63, 79, 87, 128, 139,

154, 155, 156, 170, 187, 212, and 236.

2. During the hearing, Petitioner withdrew her challenges

to questions 79, 87, 155, and 212. Ten questions remain at

issue in this proceeding.

3. A preponderance of the evidence does not support

Petitioner’s challenges to the 10 questions at issue. Expert

testimony shows the challenged questions were validated through

appropriate field testing.

4. The questions are accurate to the curriculum and

perform sufficiently during testing. The correct answer to each

challenged question was identified in the curriculum by expert

testimony during the hearing.

5. The statistical probability of an examinee answering a

question correctly is identified in the record by a "P" value.

For challenged question 32, the “P” value was 0.80, which means

that 80 percent of examinees answered the question correctly.

Only 78 of 5,220 examinees chose the answer chosen by Petitioner

for question 32.

6. The "P" value for challenged question 62 was 0.76,

meaning that 76 percent of examinees answered the question

correctly. Only 222 of 1,655 examinees chose the response that

Petitioner chose for question 62.

7. The "P" value for challenged question 63 was 0.95,

meaning that 95 percent of examinees answered the question

correctly. Only 150 of 3,387 examinees chose the response that

Petitioner chose for question 63.

8. The "P" value for challenged question 128 was 0.59,

meaning that 59 percent of examinees answered the question

correctly. Approximately 2,142 of 4,456 examinees chose the

response that Petitioner chose for question 128.

9. The "P" value for challenged question 139 was 0.93,

meaning that 93 percent of examinees answered the question

correctly. Only 20 of 568 examinees chose the response that

Petitioner chose for question 139.

10. The "P" value for challenged question 154 was 0.90,

meaning that 90 percent of examinees answered the question

correctly. Only 51 of 4,331 examinees chose the response that

Petitioner chose for question 154.

11. The "P" value for challenged question 156 was 0.80,

meaning that 80 percent of examinees answered the question

correctly. Only 404 of 5,721 examinees chose the response that

Petitioner chose for question 156.

12. The "P" value for challenged question 170 was 0.81,

meaning that 81 percent of examinees answered the question

correctly. Only 596 of 4,681 examinees chose the response that

Petitioner chose for question 170.

13. The "P" value for challenged question 187 was 0.90,

meaning that 90 percent of examinees answered the question

correctly. Only 28 of 2,908 examinees chose the response that

Petitioner chose for question 187.

14. The "P" value for challenged question 236 was 0.92,

meaning that 92 percent of examinees answered the question

correctly. Only 133 of 2,449 examinees chose the response that

Petitioner chose for question 236.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

15. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and

parties to this proceeding pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida

Statutes (2009), and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 28. 1

DOAH provided the parties with adequate notice of the final

hearing.

16. Petitioner has the burden of proof in this proceeding.

Petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the

challenged questions are faulty, arbitrarily or capriciously

worded or graded, or that Respondent arbitrarily or capriciously

denied Petitioner credit through a grading process devoid of

logic or reason. Horac v. Department of Professional

Regulation , 484 So. 2d 1333, 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State ex.

Rel. Glaser v. J.M. Pepper , 155 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963);

State ex Rel. I.H. Topp v. Board of Electrical Contractors for

Jacksonville Beach, Florid , 101 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958).

For the reasons stated in the Findings of Fact, Petitioner did

not satisfy her burden of proof.

17. A preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent

properly implemented and administered the challenged examination

questions within the meaning of Subsection 943.17(e).

Subsection 943.13(10) and Section 943.1397 prohibit Respondent

from certifying Petitioner without an acceptable score on the

challenged examination. Respondent complied with the

requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-30.0062(1)

through (3) and 11B-30.012.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law it is

RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and

Training Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner’s

challenge to the 10 examination questions from the September 20,

2009, Law Enforcement State Officer Certification Examination

numbered 32, 62, 63, 128, 139, 154, 156, 170, 187, and 236.

DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2010, 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

[phone]

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 9th day of April, 2010.

ENDNOTE

1/ References to chapters, sections, and subsections are to

Florida Statutes (2009), unless otherwise stated. References to

rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative

Code in effect at all times material to this proceeding unless

otherwise stated.

COPIES FURNISHED :

TyRonda Hobbs

1515 Windridge Circle

Sanford, Florida 32773

Grace A. Jaye, Esquire

Department of Law Enforcement

Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489

Michael Crews, Program Director

Division of Criminal Justice

Professionalism Services

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489

Michael Ramage, General Counsel

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.