Broward | Case 18-2004 | 2018-07-31

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 18-2004E **, Respondent. _______________________________/ FINAL ORDER A due process hearing was held in this case before Jessica E. Varn, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), by video teleconference with sites in Tallahassee and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on xxxxxx XX, XXXX. APPEARANCES For Petitioner: XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXX, Esquire School Board of Broward County K. C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 For Respondent: XXXXXX XX. XXXXXXX, Esquire Law Office of XXXXXX X. XXXXXXX, P.A. 1440 Coral Ridge Drive, Suite 293 Coral Springs, Florida 33071 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE Whether the placement recommended by the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team on XXXXX XX, XXXXXXX, which is an

2 exceptional student education center, is the least restrictive environment (LRE) for the student. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT A request for due process hearing was filed on XXXXXX XX, XXXX. That same day, a Case Management Order was issued, establishing deadlines for a sufficiency review, as well as the mandatory resolution session. On XXX XX, XXXX, a hearing was scheduled for XXX XX, XXXXX, to be held by video teleconference. On XXX XX, XXXX, the School Board filed a Motion for Continuance, indicating that the parties had agreed to request a stay of the due process hearing. An Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference was entered on XXX XX, XXXXX, setting the hearing date for XXXX XX, XXXXX. On XXX XX, XXXX, counsel for Respondent filed a Notice of Appearance. On XXXX XX, XXXX, Respondent filed a Motion for Continuance, seeking additional time to review discovery information and seek alternative resolution methods; the School Board objected to the continuance. An Order Denying Continuance was entered on XXXX XX, XXXXX. The hearing was held on XXXX XX, XXXX. At the due process hearing, the School Board presented testimony from XXXXX XXXXXXX, XXXXXX Coach; XXXXX XXXXXXX, Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher; XXXXXX XXXXX, XXXXXXX XXXXXXX Specialist; XXXXXXX XXXXXXX, ESE Specialist;

3 XXXXXXXX XXXXX, School Psychologist; XXXXXXX XXXX, ESE Specialist; and XXXXXX XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX Coach. School Board Exhibits 1 through 10, 21 through 24, 26, 28, 32 through 34 (pp. 536, 537, and 539), 42, and 47 (pp. 834 and 835) were admitted into the record. Respondent presented the testimony of the student’s XXXX and XXXXXX. The Transcript of the due process hearing was filed on XXXX ZZ, XXXX. On XXXX XX, XXXX, an Order Establishing Deadlines for Proposed Orders and Final Order was entered; it memorialized the agreement made by the parties at the conclusion of the due process hearing. Proposed orders were due no later than XXX XX, XXXX, and the final order was to be entered no later than XXXX XX, XXXXX. Unless otherwise noted, citations to the United States Code, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code, and Code of Federal Regulations, are to the current codifications. For stylistic convenience, the undersigned will use XXXXX pronouns in this Final Order when referring to Respondent. The ZZZ pronouns are neither intended, nor should be interpreted, as a reference to Respondent’s actual gender. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The student is a XXXX-year-old XXXXXX-grader eligible for ESE under the categories of XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX (XXX) and XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX (XXX). XX is educated in a XXXX-

4 XXXXXXXXXX classroom, which consists of XXX adults with XXX students. 2. In addition to XXX XXX XXXXXXX, XXX has been XXXXXXXXX with XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX (XXXX), and XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX (XXX). 3. Every educator who has worked with the student described XXX as XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX. XX is unlike XXX peers in that XX consistently exhibits XXXXXX-XXXXXXX behaviors, including XXX- XXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX that were so XXXXXX in XXXXXXX that they XXXXXXXX resulted in XXXXXXXX the XXXXXX in order to XXXXX the XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX. XX was described as a child who constantly XXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXX XXXX of both XXX peers and the adults at the school, enjoys XXXXXX XXXXX in others, rarely shows XXXXXXXX for others, and does not respond XXXXXXXXXXX to any XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX for more than a brief time. XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX are present across all settings during the school day, and are present on a daily basis. 4. XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX were documented in IEPs; the following is a sampling from an IEP developed in XXXXXXXX XXXX: Between the months of XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX, XXX was placed in a separate area in the classroom to work on [XXX] XXXXXXXXX before any academic demands could be placed. With constant XXXXXXXXXX, and XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX, XXXXX learned to comply with sitting in [XXX] seat for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX within X XXXXX. At this time, XXX was inconsistent with

5 attending specials and participating in group XXXXXXXX. [XXX] days were spent XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX (XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX to XXXX), XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXX, and XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX, saying things such as, “XXX XXXX XX XXXX XXX!” and XXXXXXXXXX to XXXX staff with XXXXXX objects, such as XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX, at this time, XXXXX was not allowed any XXXXX or XXXXXX objects. Staff were XXXXXX [XXX] responses for [XXX] or cutting responses out for XXXX to paste on [XXX] worksheet using a glue stick. 5. Every educator also felt that XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX were a daily impediment to XXX access to education; XXX is not able to learn anything due to XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX. In XXXXXXXXX of XXXX, the following is documented in another IEP: Based on classroom observation and IEP data collected, XXX is absolutely inconsistent from day to day with [XXX] XXXXXXX. [XXX] XXXXXXX can be as little as verbally rebutting to being really XXXXXXX where [XX] is XXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX objects in the classroom. [XX] requires XXXXXXXX support and constant redirection to ensure that [XX] is following teacher directives, and being appropriate. [XX] requires an adult in XXXX XXXXXXXX at all times for the XXXXXX of [XXX]XXXX and others. [**]’s XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX include XXXXXXXXX without being provoked, XXXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX to the floor, immersing [XXX]XXXXXX in XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, for example, XXXXXXX as if [XX] is a XXXXX, XXXXXX on the XXXXXX, XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX other students. These XXXXXXXX occur when XXX wants to avoid a non- preferred activity, or when [XX] feels like [XXX] “authority/control” is being compromised . . . The behaviors XXXXXXXXX [sic] the momentum of the classroom, and XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX [sic] all the students in

6 the classroom . . . XXXX has difficulty with personal space and will attempt to CCC or DDD preferred adults on the XXXXXX. XXXX has escalated to now XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX adults in XXXXXXXXXXXXX areas of their XXXX, and will make XXXXXXXXXXX comments about parts of a XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX . . . [XXX] XXXXXXXXX are XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXX. 6. School A, where XX had been since XXXXX grade, addressed XXXX behaviors in multiple ways. XXX ESE teacher and aide implemented different interventions daily, and an XXXX coach worked with the student daily. A XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX was also assigned to observe XXX and develop strategies to assist the classroom teachers and the XXXXXX coach. The staff gathered data on the student’s XXXXXXX, to attempt to identify the function of the XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX; they concluded that the student was seeking attention and avoiding academic tasks. 7. A variety of XXXXXX and XXXXXXX learning strategies were employed, including XXXXX thinking, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, first/then options, teaching XXXXXXX as appropriate based on context rather than “right and wrong,” token board, and role playing. The student’s XXXXX-XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX to XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX were unlike XXX peers at School A; XXX essentially XXXXXX the classroom in such a manner that XX demanded the attention of the adults, XXXXXXXXXXXX affecting the other students in the classroom.

7 8. The student’s XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXX (XXX) was revised by the staff XXX times, with no meaningful improvement seen in the student’s XXXXXXXX. During XXX time at School A, the student was placed with different teachers, different assistants, and different peers. Nothing improved XXX behavior. 9. On XXXXXX XX, XXXX, the IEP team gathered and ultimately recommended placement in an XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX (also known as a XXXXXXXXX XXX school) because the student was not making progress in the XXXX-XXXXXXX classroom, despite the variety of XXXXXXXXX supports that had been employed. The student’s XXXXXX provided consent to the recommended placement at the IEP meeting, but a month later, revoked XXX consent. The following is a sampling of the XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX described in the March XXXX IEP: XXXX’s XXXXXXX impact the classroom and the learning environment when [XX] is not XXXXXXX. [He] will say, “XX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XX, X XXXX XXXX XXXXXX the XXXXXX XXXXXXX” to get the adults attention from the other students to [XXX]. XXX does not initially feel any empathy when [XXX] hurts [XXX] peers. [XX] does not observe personal space and [XX] goes directly into the students’ personal space and in some cases, [XX] will become XXXXXXXXX and XXXX or XXXXXXXXX the student. * * * This duration of non-compliance [sic] behavior is the same as the previous year. Non-compliance can last on average from

8 XX minutes to XX hours, to on and off throughout the entire school day. During this time, [XX] is XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX adults, XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXX XXXXX and XXXXXXXX in peer’s faces, XXXXXXXX around the classroom, XXXXXXX classroom items from others, and XXXXXXX the furniture. During these episodes, [XX] has asked questions such as, “XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX?”, “XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX?”, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX” [XX] has also asked teachers, “XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX?” 10. In XXXXX of XXXX, the student’s parents withdrew the student from School A and enrolled XXX at School B, another XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX school, which had an XXX XXXXXX-XXXXXXXX classroom. On XXX first day, XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX surfaced, and never went away. The XXXXXXXX at School B were the XXXXX as they had been at School A; and, although different XXXXXXXXXXX strategies were employed, nothing seemed to make a lasting difference in the student’s XXXXXXXX. 11. School C, which is the XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX recommended for the student, has approximately XXX students placed into XX different classrooms. School C is a XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX school, designed to meet the needs of students with XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX. Each classroom has less than XXX students and XXX adults; it has the XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX-XX-XXX XXXXXX in the county. Each student is assigned a counselor; the school employs a highly XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX staff and XXXXXXX-XXXXXXXXXX-XXXXXXX personnel. Approximately XX percent of the students are eligible for ESE

9 services under the XXX category. The evidence demonstrated that the XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX would be able to implement the student's IEP goals and XXX, and would be an appropriate placement for the student. 12. In this case, the evidence clearly demonstrated that the student cannot be satisfactorily educated in the XXX- XXXXXXXXXX ESE classroom with the use of supplemental aids and services. Further, the student has been mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate and placement in a XXXXX XXX XXXXXX is necessary due to the student's XXXXXXXX. Given these facts, placement in the XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX is appropriate. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 13. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. §§ 1003.57(1)(a) and 1003.5715(5), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-6.03311(9)(u). 14. Petitioner bears the burden of proof with respect to each of the claims raised in the Complaint. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2005). 15. In enacting the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Congress sought to “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasized special education and related services

10 designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A); Phillip C. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 701 F.3d 691, 694 (11th. Cir. 2012). The statute was intended to address the inadequate educational services offered to children with disabilities and to combat the exclusion of such children from the public school system. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c)(2)(A)-(B). To accomplish these objectives, the federal government provides funding to participating state and local educational agencies, which is contingent on the agency's compliance with the IDEA's procedural and substantive requirements. Doe v. Alabama State Dep't of Educ., 915 F.2d 651, 654 (11th Cir. 1990). See also Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 197 L. Ed. 2d 335, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2025, 137 S. Ct. 988, 85 U.S.L.W. 4109, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 490 (U.S. Mar. 22, 2017). 16. Parents and children with disabilities are accorded substantial procedural safeguards to ensure that the purposes of the IDEA are fully realized. See Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 205-06 (1982). Among other protections, parents are entitled to examine their child's records and participate in meetings concerning their child's education; receive written notice prior to any proposed change in the educational placement of their child; and file an administrative due process complaint with respect to any matter

11 relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement (FAPE) of [their] child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1), (b)(3), & (b)(6). 17. Local school systems must also satisfy the IDEA's substantive requirements by providing all eligible students with FAPE, which is defined as: Special education and related services that-- (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under [20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)]. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9). 18. “Special education,” as that term is used in the IDEA, is defined as: [S]pecially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including-- (A) instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings . . . . 20 U.S.C. § 1401(29). 19. The components of FAPE are recorded in an IEP, which, among other things, identifies the child's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, establishes

12 measurable annual goals, addresses the services and accommodations to be provided to the child and whether the child will attend mainstream classes, and specifies the measurement tools, and periodic reports, that will be used to evaluate the child's progress. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320. 20. In addition to requiring that school districts provide students with FAPE, the IDEA further gives directives on students' placements or education environment in the school system. Specifically, 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A), provides as follows: Least restrictive environment. (A) In general. To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. 21. Pursuant to the IDEA's implementing regulations, states must have in effect policies and procedures to ensure that public agencies in the state meet the LRE requirements. 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a). Additionally, each public agency must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the

13 needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services. 34 C.F.R. § 300.115. In turn, the Florida Department of Education has enacted rules to comply with the above-referenced mandates concerning LRE and providing a continuum of alternative placements. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A- 6.03028(3)(i) and 6A-6.0311(1).1/ 22. In determining the educational placement of a child with a disability, each public agency must ensure that the placement decision is made by a group of persons, including the parents, and other persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options. 34 C.F.R. § 300.116(a)(1). Additionally, the child's placement must be determined at least annually, based on the child's IEP, and as close as possible to the child's home. 34 C.F.R. § 300.116(b). 23. With the LRE directive, “Congress created a statutory preference for educating handicapped children with non- handicapped children.” Greer v. Rome City Sch. Dist., 950 F.2d 688, 695 (11th Cir. 1991)(opinion withdrawn on procedural grounds and reinstated in pertinent part; see 956 F.2d 1025, 1026-27; see also 967 F.2d 470). “By creating a statutory preference for mainstreaming, Congress also created a tension between two provisions of the Act, school districts must both seek to mainstream handicapped children and, at the same time, must

14 tailor each child's educational placement and program to his special needs.” Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ., 874 F.2d 1036, 1044 (5th Cir. 1989). 24. In Daniel, the Fifth Circuit set forth a two-part test for determining compliance with the mainstreaming requirement: First, we ask whether education in the regular classroom, with the use of supplemental aids and services, can be achieved satisfactorily for a given child. See § 1412(5)(B). If it cannot and the school intends to provide special education or to remove the child from regular education, we ask, second, whether the school has mainstreamed the child to the maximum extent appropriate. Id. at 1048. 25. In Greer, the Eleventh Circuit adopted the Daniel two- part inquiry. Greer, 950 F. 2d at 696. In determining the first step, whether a school district can satisfactorily educate a student in the regular classroom, several factors are to be considered: 1) a comparison of the educational benefits the student would receive in a regular classroom, supplemented by aids and services, with the benefits he will receive in a self- contained special education environment; 2) what effect the presence of the student in a regular classroom would have on the education of other students in that classroom; and 3) the cost of the supplemental aids and services that will be necessary to

15 achieve a satisfactory education for the student in a regular classroom. Id. at 697. 26. Here, the undisputed evidence establishes that the student cannot be satisfactorily educated in the regular classroom, with the use of supplemental aids and services. Moreover, there is no evidence that, subsequent to the ESE eligibility determination, the student's parents sought to have the student educated in a regular classroom. 27. Accordingly, the instant proceeding turns on the second part of the test: whether the student has been mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate. In determining this issue, the Daniel court provided the following general guidance: The [IDEA] and its regulations do not contemplate an all-or-nothing educational system in which handicapped children attend either regular or special education. Rather, the Act and its regulations require schools to offer a continuum of services. Thus, the school must take intermediate steps where appropriate, such as placing the child in regular education for some academic classes and in special education for others, mainstreaming the child for nonacademic classes only, or providing interaction with non-handicapped children during lunch and recess. The appropriate mix will vary from child to child and, it may be hoped, from school year to school year as the child develops. If the school officials have provided the maximum appropriate exposure to non-handicapped students, they have fulfilled their obligation under the [IDEA]. Daniel, 874 F.2d at 1050 (internal citations omitted).

16 28. For the last few years, the student has received XXX education in a restrictive environment, to no avail. Likewise, the staff has utilized all appropriate interventions and strategies, to no avail. As discussed above in the Findings of Fact, due to the nature and severity of XX disability, XX did not, or could not receive an educational benefit from said interventions and strategies in a XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. Additionally, XXX behaviors posed a significant health and safety risk to XXXXXX and others and negatively impacted XXX classmates' ability to learn. 29. The student's IEP team has opined, and the School Board's witnesses uniformly testified, that FAPE cannot be provided to the student absent a XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX setting. The undersigned is mindful that great deference should be paid to the educators who developed the IEP. A.K. v. Gwinnett Cnty. Sch. Dist., 556 Fed. Appx. 790, 792 (11th Cir. 2014)(“In determining whether the IEP is substantively adequate, we ‘pay great deference to the educators who develop the IEP.’”)(quoting Todd D. v. Andrews, 933 F.2d 1576, 1581 (11th Cir. 1991)). As noted in Daniel, “[the undersigned's] task is not to second-guess state and local policy decisions; rather, it is the narrow one of determining whether state and local officials have complied with the Act.” Daniel, 874 F.2d at 1048.

17 30. The XXXXXX XXXX IEP proposes a change of the student's placement to the next point (in terms of escalating restrictiveness) on the continuum of possible placements. While it is undisputed that the proposed placement offers XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX for XXXXXXXXXX with XXXXXXXXXX XXXX, the better evidence demonstrated that the student's daily XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX warrant such a result. The School Board's proposed placement of the student in a XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXX mainstreams the student to the maximum extent appropriate and is approved. ORDER Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that the School Board's proposed change of the student's placement from a XXXXXX/XXXXXX ESE class to an exceptional student education XXXXXX/XXXXX XXXX school is approved.

18 DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 31st day of July, 2018. ENDNOTE 1/ In Florida, a school district may not place a student in an XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX center, without parental consent. Where, as here, the parent does not consent, the school district may not proceed with such placement unless the school district obtains “approval” through a due process hearing. See § 1003.5715, Fla. Stat. Section 1003.5715 does not abrogate any parental right identified in the IDEA and its implementing regulations. § 1003.5715(7), Fla. Stat. COPIES FURNISHED: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXX, Esquire School Board of Broward County K. C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) XXXXXX XXXXXXX Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)

19 XXXXX XX. XXXXXXXXX, Esquire Law Office of XXX XX XXXXXXXXX, P.A. 1440 Coral Ridge Drive, Suite 293 Coral Springs, Florida 33071 (eServed) XXXXXX XXXXXXX, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) XXXXXXXX XXXXXX, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue, Floor 10 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW This decision is final unless, within 90 days after the date of this decision, an adversely affected party: a) brings a civil action in the appropriate state circuit court pursuant to section 1003.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2014), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 6.03311(9)(w); or b) brings a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2), 34 C.F.R. § 300.516, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03311(9)(w).