Precious Bonaparte- Hunt, CSC Docket No. 2023-2001

BackgroundPrecious Bonaparte-Hunt appeals her score on the Human Services Specialist 4 (PC5164D), Hudson County promotional examination.

By way of background, there were 109 candidates who applied and 64 were admitted to the test, including the appellant who is provisionally serving in the subject title. The subject examination was tested using the Supervisory Test Battery (STB). The STB was administered on February 16, 2023, where the passing score was 44.6. The appellant was determined ineligible for the subject examination as her test score was 42.2, which was the below the minimum cutoff for the test. A total of 35 applicants were determined eligible for the subject examination. Certification PL230405 was issued containing the name of the 35 eligibles, and the list expires on March 22, 2025.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant presents that the test administrator stated that the candidates would not be able to move forward with the next question of the test without completely answering. However, she provides that the test allowed a whole section of the test to be unanswered. The appellant indicates that there was a section that required two answers, and when she realized that she did not answer the second question, she spoke to the test administrator. Additionally, the appellant states that she asked the administrator if she could go back to answer missing questions, and the administrator responded that she was unsure and that if she hit the back button, the test may start over and she might not be able to finish on time. The appellant indicates that she replied that she was willing take that chance. However, the administrator explained that the test might shut off completely, and the administrator advised that she should press the complete button. The appellant notes that she missed a passing grade by 1.81 points, and she believes that she would have passed if she had the opportunity to answer the missing questions as she completed the test with more than an hour of time remaining.

Additionally, the appellant explains that although the instructions for the STB were written, she asserts that in the testing center a verbal understanding was explained, and she assumed that this was an override to what was given. The appellant states that she made this assumption because of the few errors that were mentioned during the testing center on that day. She indicates that she is competent to follow instructions, but it seems like her anxiety and the way the instructions were spoken to her during the testing time confused her about what can be done regarding the two answer questions. Therefore, she is appealing based on the lack of understanding that she had concerning the two answer questions, how she expressed her lack of understanding to the test administrator, and how the test administrator was unable to assist her. She requests some relief based on how close she was to passing and her belief that she would have passed the STB if she understood how the two answer questions worked.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that appellants shall have the burden of proof in all examination scoring and administration appeals.

AnalysisIn response, a review of the STB introduction screen indicates that “When information provided during the test is available for review there will be a link at the top of the test page identified as ‘STB Reference’ followed by the corresponding question numbers. For questions requiring 2 answers, the STB Reference must be viewed before selecting any answers. DO NOT click the STB Reference if you have selected just one answer. Doing so will force you to the next question and you will not be permitted to select a second answer.” Thus, the appellant was advised that if she clicked the STB Reference after selecting just one answer, she would be forced to the next question. As such, there is no basis to reevaluate and change the appellant’s examination score since these instructions were given to all STB test takers. It is noted that there was a sufficient number of candidates who passed the STB for the subject examination. Therefore, there is no remedy that can be provided under these circumstances.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that the appeal be denied.

1 Agency records indicates that the appellant missed the cutoff score for the STB by 2.4 points.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.