04-000696 Shagufa Mubarik vs. Department Of Education Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, July 14, 2004.

Summary: Observation by examination supervisor and statistical review of Petitioner`s exam responses establish cheating.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SHAGUFA MUBARIK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 04 - 0696

)

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On May 3, 2004, an ad ministrative hearing in this case was

held by videoconference between Tallahassee and Orlando,

Florida, before William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law

Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Shagufa Mubarik, pro se

2426 Island Club Way

Orlando, Florida 32822

For Respondent: Scott J. Odenbach, Esquire

Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244

Tallahassee, Flori da 32399 - 0400

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in the case is whether the allegations set forth

in the Respondent's letter to the Petitioner dated February 16,

2004, are correct.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated February 16, 2004, the Department o f

Education (Respondent) notified Shagufa Mubarik (Petitioner)

that her score from the January 24, 2004, administration of the

Professional Education Test had been invalidated. The letter

stated that the reason for the invalidation was the Respondent's

de termination that the Petitioner cheated on the test. The

letter advised the Petitioner that she had the right to dispute

the determination through an administrative hearing. By letter

dated February 20, 2004, the Petitioner disputed the

determination and requested a hearing. The Respondent forwarded

the request for hearing to the Division of Administrative

Hearings, which scheduled and conducted the proceeding.

At the hearing, the Respondent presented the testimony of

three witnesses and had Exhibits n umbered 1 through 5 admitted

into evidence. The Petitioner testified on her own behalf,

presented the testimony of one witness, and had one composite

exhibit admitted into evidence. The one - volume Transcript of

the hearing was filed on June 16, 2004. Bo th parties filed

proposed recommended orders that were considered in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Pursuant to statute, the Florida Department of

Education has developed and administers the Florida Teacher

Certification Examination. A Florida teacher seeking

certification as an educator by the State of Florida must obtain

a passing score on the exam.

2. In November 2003, the Petitioner applied to take the

Teacher's Professional Education Test on January 24, 2004. The

Petitioner signed the registration application on November 13,

2003, acknowledging that she agreed to the provisions set forth

in the exam application materials. The Respondent received the

Petitioner's signed application on November 17, 2003.

3. The ins truction sheet contained in the exam application

materials provides in relevant part that examinees may not

"communicate with other examinees in any way" or "give or

receive assistance from other examinees," and states that

related violations will result i n the examination being

"voided."

4. Approximately two weeks prior to the exam, the

Respondent sent a letter to all registrants. The Petitioner

received a copy of the letter. In the letter, the Respondent

outlined behaviors regarded as cheating, and s pecifically

identified cheating to include "looking, or attempting to look,

at the examination answers, responses, or other materials of

another examinee."

5. Prior to exam administration, supervisors and proctors

received a Test Administration Manual a nd received instruction

on identification of "cheating" or "suspected cheating,"

including observation of an examinee looking or attempting to

look at another examinee's test materials or answer sheet.

6. As to cheating, the Test Administration Manual s ets

forth the procedure to be followed by a supervisor or proctor

who observes or suspects cheating is occurring, and provides in

relevant part as follows:

3. If a room supervisor who observes

cheating activity, or to whom cheating

activity is reported by a room proctor, is

reasonably certain that cheating is taking

place based on the clarity, duration, or

vantage point of the observations, whether

or not another individual can confirm the

observation, the room supervisor shall

a. collect the examinee's examination

materials;

b. inform the examinee that he or she will

not be allowed to complete that examination

or participate in any further testing on

that examination administration date;

c. make notes of the identity of those

involved or in a positio n to have observed

or been aware of the activity and the

relative locations in, and other pertinent

features of, the examination room;

d. at the conclusion of the testing time,

quietly request examinees who were not

involved in but were in a position to have

observed or been aware of the cheating to

come to a private office or other

appropriate location to be interviewed by,

and give a statement to the room supervisor;

and

e. prepare a full written report of the

incident, including as attachments all

wi tnesses' statements and other pertinent

documents or tangible items and make the

report part of the Room Supervisor's

Irregularity Report.

4. Suspected cheating - If a room

supervisor reasonably suspects that cheating

activity is occurring but cannot be certain,

even after conferring with one or more other

individuals, that a cheating activity is

taking place, the room supervisor shall

a. continue to make observations and

quietly notify a room proctor to continue to

make observations of the suspicious

a ctivity;

b. follow steps c, d, and e in number 3

above; and

c. include in the Irregularity Report a

notation that the answer folder of the

examinee suspected of cheating should be

analyzed in connection with the

circumstances described in the report.

7. During the exam administration on January 24, 2004, a

supervisor present in the room where the Petitioner was located

observed the Petitioner staring at the answer sheet of another

person (identified as "Rekha"), who was also taking the exam.

Rekha wa s seated to the left and slightly ahead of the

Petitioner in the exam room.

8. At the hearing, the supervisor described the

Petitioner's suspicious behavior as "constant staring" and

"noticeable concentration" towards Rekha's answer sheet.

9. At the t ime the room supervisor observed the

Petitioner's behavior, the test period was drawing to a close.

Many examinees had already completed their work and left the

room. By the time the supervisor saw the Petitioner's behavior,

there were no other examinees in position to observe the

Petitioner.

10. After the exam ended, the supervisor compared the

Petitioner's answer sheet with that of Rekha, and observed that

there were a number of erasures and answer changes on the

Petitioner's answer sheet that matche d Rehka's answers.

11. The supervisor completed an "Irregularity Report"

dated January 24, 2004, in which he wrote:

I witnessed Shagufa constantly looking at

Rekha's answer sheet, in about the last 30

minutes of test. I compared answer sheets

afterward s and noticed several answer

changes on Shagufa's sheet to what was on

Rekha's.

12. The irregularity report and the answer sheets were

submitted to the Respondent for further review.

13. After the Respondent received the materials, the

Respondent assig ned Dr. Cornelia Orr, an expert in test response

analysis, to review the answer sheets. Dr. Orr testified

persuasively at the hearing and her testimony is credited.

14. Dr. Orr compared the exam score for the Petitioner

(referred to as Examinee A) with t hat of Rekha (referred to as

Examinee B) and determined that their scores were "very

similar."

15. Dr. Orr reviewed the erasures on the answer sheets and

determined that there were 27 erasures on the Petitioner's

answer sheet. There were four erasures on Examinee B's sheet.

Of the Petitioner's 27 erasures, 18 were changed from incorrect

to correct answers and matched the answers of Examinee B. An

additional four answers were changed from correct to incorrect

answers and matched incorrect answers of Ex aminee B.

16. Dr. Orr reviewed the incorrect answers on both sheets

and determined that the Petitioner missed 54 questions, that

Examinee B missed 48 questions, and that 30 of the Petitioner's

incorrect responses matched the incorrect answers of Examine e B.

Dr. Orr described the incidence of corresponding incorrect

answers on the two answer sheets as "highly unusual."

17. After concluding her review of the two answer sheets,

Dr. Orr then analyzed the answers and scores of the 3,747

persons who took the test on the same day to determine the

correlations between all examinees to Examinees A and B's

answers.

18. For all examinees, the average number of wrong answers

corresponding to those of Examinee B was nine, as compared to

the Petitioner's 30 incorr ect answers which matched those of

Examinee B.

19. Based on Dr. Orr's review and evaluation, she

determined that the chance probability of the Petitioner's high

number of incorrect answers corresponding to those of Examinee B

was one in 33,000.

CONCLUSI ONS OF LAW

20. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

proceeding. § 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2003).

21. The Respondent has the burden of proving by clear and

convincing evidence the allegat ions of cheating by the

Petitioner. Department of Banking and Finance v. Osborne Stern

and Company , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington ,

510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

22. The State Board of Education is responsible for

development of procedu res by which professional teaching

certificates are awarded. Such certification requires

successful completion of an examination. See § 1012.56 Fla.

Stat. (2003).

23. As set forth in the instructions provided to all exam

registrants, the Respondent's policy is to void the examination

of any examinee determined to be cheating. Cheating is defined

to include an examinee looking or attempting to look at another

examinee's materials.

24. The evidence in this case, including the visual

observation by t he exam supervisor and Dr. Orr's review of the

answer sheets and analysis of the exam responses, establishes

that the Petitioner cheated on the examination.

25. In addition to denying that she cheated on the exam,

the Petitioner asserts that the room supe rvisor did not follow

the proper procedure when he observed the Petitioner looking at

another answer sheet. Specifically, the Petitioner notes that

her examination materials were not collected at the time the

supervisor observed the behavior, that she was allowed to

complete the test, and that the room supervisor did not

interview other examinees in a position to have observed the

Petitioner's behavior.

26. The evidence establishes that the room supervisor

substantially complied with the procedure for " suspected

cheating." After initially noticing the Petitioner's behavior,

he continued to observe the suspicious activity. He did not

interview other examinees because by the time he observed the

behavior, other examinees in the vicinity of the Petitioner had

completed their work and left the room. There were no examinees

in a position to have observed or been aware of the activity.

He prepared an "Irregularity Report" wherein he reported the

suspected activity to the appropriate authorities.

RECOMMEND ATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a Final

Order voiding the score of Shagufa Mubarik on the January 24,

2004, Professional Education Test.

DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2004, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3 060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 14th day of July, 2004.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Shagufa Mubarik

2426 Island Club Way

Orlando, Florida 32 822

Scott J. Odenbach, Esquire

Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Honorable Jim Horne, Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tall ahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel

Department of Education

1244 Turlington Building

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

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.