Broward | Case 20-0061 | 2020-03-25

State of Florida DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS **, Petitioner, vs. BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Respondent. / Case No. 20-0061E FINAL ORDER A due process hearing was held in this matter before Jessica E. Varn, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), on XXXXXXX XX, XXXX, in Lauderdale Lakes, Florida. APPEARANCES For Petitioner: Petitioner, pro se (Address of record) For Respondent: XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX, Esquire School Board of Broward County K. C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Whether the School Board failed to provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) by improperly identifying the student’s eligibility category and by not placing the student in the least restrictive environment (LRE), in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq.

2 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Petitioner filed a Request for Due Process Hearing (Complaint) on XXXXX XX, XXXX. On that same date, the School Board forwarded the Complaint to DOAH, and the Complaint was assigned to the undersigned for all further proceedings. On XXXXXX XX, XXXX, the School Board filed a status report indicating that the student’s parent had, in writing, waived the resolution session and wanted to proceed directly to the due process hearing. The School Board also agreed to waive the resolution session. Petitioner requested, and the School Board agreed to provide, a XXXXXXX interpreter for all proceedings. A telephonic pre-hearing conference with the parties was held on XXXXXX XX, XXXX. The parties agreed to schedule the due process hearing for XXXXX,XX,XXXX. The due process hearing was conducted, as scheduled, on XXXXXX,XX,XXXX. XXXXXX XXXX XXX served as the certified XXXXXXXX/XXXXXX interpreter during the due process hearing. Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 5 were admitted without objection. Petitioner presented one witness: the student’s XXXXX XXXX. School Board Exhibits 1 through 6, 8, 9, 12 through 16, and 28 were admitted. The School Board presented the testimony of XXXXXXX XX XXXXX, an exceptional student education (ESE) specialist; XXXXXXXX XXXXXX, a bilingual school psychologist; XXXXXXX XXXXX, a speech language pathology program specialist; and XXXXXXX XXXXX, a due process coordinator. At the conclusion of the due process hearing, the parties agreed to file proposed final orders ten days after the filing of the Transcript with DOAH. The due process hearing Transcript was filed on XXXXXX, XX, XXXX; accordingly, the parties had the opportunity to file proposed final orders no later than XXXXXX, XX, XXXX, and the Final Order would issue no later than XXXXXXX,XX,XXXX. The School Board timely filed a proposed order, which was considered in the preparation of this Final Order.

3 Unless otherwise indicated, all rule and statutory references are to the version in effect at the time of the alleged violations. For stylistic convenience, the undersigned will use XX pronouns in this Final Order when referring to Petitioner. The XX pronouns are neither intended, nor should be interpreted, as a reference to Petitioner’s actual gender. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The student, who attended the due process hearing, was born XXXXXX in December XXXXX and diagnosed with XXXXXXXXX XX XXX . XXX developmental milestones were XXXXXXX XXXXX; for example, XX did not begin XXXXX until age XXXX. XX began to receive early intervention services in March of XXXX. 2. When the student was XXXXX, XX was evaluated by a multi- disciplinary team in order to assess XXX level of functioning. A summary review of the results reflected significant delays in areas of XXXXX, XXXXXX, XXXXXX, XXXXX-XXX, and overall XXXXXX-XXX. Since the primary language spoken in the student’s home is XXXXXX-XXXX, XX was also assessed for XXX XXXXXXX XXX learning. In this regard, the team was unable to assess XXX, because XX did not answer any of the questions during the language classification test. 3. In XXXX, when the student was approaching age XXXXX and attending XXXXXX, a reevaluation plan was prepared, noting that the student had XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX. While XX could say “no,” “stop it,” “me,” “bye,” “shut up,” and “all done,” XX primarily communicated using signs, gestures, and jibberish. 4. XX required hand-over-hand assistance to access toys, but showed little interest in them or in the various centers in the classroom. XX preferred to be alone or with an adult, and needed maximum prompting to play appropriately with the other children.

4 5. XX did, however, enjoy musical instruments, dancing in front of a mirror, circle time, and music class. Television or other technology, such as a computer or tablet, also engaged XXX for longer periods of time. 6. Negative behaviors emerged, such as getting out of XXX seat, spitting, hitting, pushing, slapping, and yelling when XX did not want to do something. XX often smiled or laughed while engaging in these behaviors. 7. At school, the student was dependent on adults for all toileting and dressing needs, was eating only pureed food, and required hand-over-hand assistance to eat. 8. Although both XXX XXXXX and XXXXXXX teacher believed that the student enjoyed school, XX had no friends, XX did not want to participate in any organized activities, XX would hurt others on purpose, XX did not follow most directions, XX resisted behavioral limits, XX communicated mostly with gestures and sounds, and XX was xxxxx with objects, other children, and adults. 9. From xxxxxxx through xxxxx of XXXX, a comprehensive psycho- educational evaluation was conducted, with the goal of planning ahead for entering XXXXXXXX in the fall. The school psychologist observed the student in the classroom over the course of three days in three different months. The student demonstrated consistent behaviors throughout the three observations. 10. XX often stared blankly, XXX attention span was limited, and he was easily distracted. When XX did not want to complete tasks, XX would grunt, throw items, push things away, or wave XXX hand in a hitting motion toward the adult helping XXX. The psychologist never saw the student play cooperatively with other children, or communicate without using gestures and grunting. 11. Based on Behavior Scales and Global Index Scales, the student had elevated levels of XXXXX and XXXXXX behaviors, XXXX and XXXXX, and maladaptive social functioning. Specifically, XX frequently had XXXXX

5 XXXXX outbursts, XX was often defiant, XX moods changed quickly, and XX could be cruel to other children. XX was, as a result, often ignored by the other children. 12. The clinical assessments revealed that the student’s developmental profile and adaptive scores placed the student XXXXXX XXX XXXX from the mean of 100 as compared to typical peers. 13. Overall, the psychologist found that the student demonstrated significant delays in cognitive skills, development, pre-academics, and adaptive skills. XX also exhibited clinically significant levels of XXXXX, XXXXXX, XXXXXX, and XXXXXXX behaviors. 14. The psychologist recommended that the student’s curriculum be adjusted for XXX rate of learning, which is significantly slower than average. The student needed a program with ample individual assistance and direct instruction in social and communication skills. It also needed to XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX and strategies to XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, and XXXXXXXX. 15. On XXXXXX XX XXXX, the student was found eligible for ESE services in the category of XXXXXX XXXXX XXXX, and an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) was designed for the student, placing XXX in a XXXXXX XXX classroom. The XXXXXX did not object to the student’s eligibility or the student’s placement. 16. The record contains no educational records for school years XXXX- XXXX, and XXXX-XXXX. 17. In February of XXXX, the IEP team developed a reevaluation plan. In terms of language, the student’s verbal approximations were increasing, and XX was showing progress in two-three-word phrase length utterances. During language therapy, the student required constant redirection in order to complete tasks. XX continued to have difficulty independently expressing XXX wants and needs in the classroom.

6 18. In the area of academics, the student had learned how to follow simple directions with prompts, such as taking out XXX folder, placing XXX backpack in a cubby, and following the schedule of the class. In reading, XX was able to point to pictures when requested, and was learning the alphabet. In math, XX was learning the numbers 1 through 5. XX had learned to pick up a pencil but could not yet form letters. 19. Socially, XX had XXXXXX some. XX was able to hold eye contact when someone spoke to XXX, XX enjoyed socializing with the other children, and XX could sometimes play with XXXX. XX continued to struggle with XXXXX XXXXXX, and would sometimes XXX, XXXX, and XXXX at the other children. XX also continued to XXXX when exhibiting negative behaviors. 20. As to XXX adaptive skills, XX could hold a spoon and feed XXXXXX, and XX could independently drink from a cup. XX was starting the process of toilet training, and XX could walk XXX tray to the garbage and dispose of things properly. 21. The IEP team determined that there was no need to conduct formal assessments because the student continued to meet the criteria for the XXXX eligibility category, and XXX placement remained unchanged. The XXXXX did not object to the student’s eligibility or XXX placement. 22. In October of XXXX, the IEP team finalized an IEP for the student’s XXXX-XXXX year. In this IEP, XX was described as a XXXXX and XXXXXX student who enjoyed playing with the other children, singing and dancing, and using an iPad. XX required constant attention, and would XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX, including negative behaviors. This XXXXXXX XXXX seeking behavior hindered XXX ability to perform academic tasks. Despite XXX ability to independently complete many tasks during the school day, he often XXXXXX to do so without XXXXXX XXXX and XXXXX XXXX. 23. In the area of math, XX could independently count to 5, but often XXXXXX with number X, skipping number XX. XX could also identify basic colors and shapes, and the month, day, and date with verbal prompting. In

7 XXXXXXX XXXXX, XX could follow a left to right reading progression with XXX finger, understood when to turn a page, and was continuing to learn the alphabet. XX had also begun to color a picture with markers with encouragement and model prompts. 24. In the areas of social and emotional behavior, XX often exhibited XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX. For example, XXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXX, XXXX, XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX, XXXXXXX hurt other children and adults, XXXXXXX XXXX XXX, and XXXXX. As to XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX, XX had shown great progress. XX had transitioned to solid soft food, could feed XXXXXX with a spoon, and could use a straw and a cup independently. XX also understood how to say “help” when XX needed assistance opening a food container. XX had to be prompted to use a napkin or paper towel throughout the day because XX relaxed the bottom part of XXX mouth, causing saliva to pool in XXX mouth and drip. If XX was not prompted to close XXX mouth, XX did nothing, causing saliva to drip on XXXXX, other children, and items around the classroom. 25. As to XXXXX, XX had progressed. XX could pull XXX pants down, eliminate, and wash XXX hands with only verbal prompting. Since XX tended to play or get distracted, constant supervision in the restroom was necessary. XX enjoyed playing catch with the children; XX could stack a tower of nine cubes, string small beads, and properly place objects in a shape sorter and peg board. 26. According to the teachers, the student always tried XXX best to communicate. XX attempted to use correct pronunciation and word form, but it was often difficult to understand XXX. XX was able, though, to say “yes” or “no” when XXX peers or adults were trying to figure out the request or topic. XX knew the names of XXX teachers and peers, and used them when speaking to or about them. XX could initiate and maintain a conversation for a few exchanges using a variation of verbal approximation and American Sign Language signs and pictures.

8 27. The XXXX IEP continued to identify the student’s eligibility category as XXX; and, based on XXX educational needs, XXX placement continued in a XXXXXX XXX XXXXX. The parent did not object to the student’s eligibility or XXX placement. 28. On XXXXX XX, XXXX, the IEP, with the parent’s consent, was amended to include Extended School Year (ESY) services. 29. In September of XXXX, when the student was in XXXXX grade, the IEP team revisited the student’s IEP. The student was described as a playful student who could not differentiate between playing and structured activities. Throughout the school day, XX had to be constantly reminded that it was not playing time. XX laughed at everything, and required constant redirection. XXX XXXXXXX and XXXXXX challenges, which included not just XXXX XXXXXXX, but also XXXXXX and XXXXXXX behaviors toward peers and adults, hindered XXX ability to focus on academic endeavors. XX completed no academic tasks without constant prompting and redirection. XX did not seem to retain the academic lessons when XX was assessed, and progressed minimally in all academic areas. 30. XX did, however, make strides in many areas of daily living. XX had learned how to independently follow the morning routine in the classroom; XX used the restroom with only verbal reminders to flush the toilet and wash XXX hands; and XX walked through the cafeteria line, chose XXX food, and walked to the correct table with minimal direction. 31. At the request of the parent, who expressed concerns over the lack of academic progress, the IEP team reconvened in February of XXXX to create a reevaluation plan. The team agreed to evaluate the student in the areas of achievement, adaptive behavior, and intellectual/cognitive abilities. XX XXXXXXXX, a bilingual (XXXXXXX and XXXXXX-XXXX) school psychologist was selected for the psycho-educational evaluation. XX XXXXXXX has a bachelor’s and master’s degree in psychology, and XXX is certified through the Florida Department of Education as a school psychologist for grades

9 XXXXXXX through XXXXXX grade. XXX conducted XXX evaluation in both languages, but reported that the student’s predominant language is English. 32. XX XXXXXXX used the cognitive assessment XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX – XXXXXX (XXX) and the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX – XX (XXXX) to assess the student’s cognitive abilities. XXX used the XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX XXXXX to determine what the student should know for XXX age and grade, and the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Parent/Teacher to help assess XXX independent functioning. The XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX results from the parent and teacher yielded very similar results, indicating that the student functioned similarly in both the home and school setting. The assessments overall indicated that the student presented as a student with an XXXXXX XXXXXX; specifically, XXX adaptive scores of X and XX for the parent and teacher respectively, were more than two standard deviations from the standard scores of XX to XX. 33. XX XXXXXXXX noted that the student’s medical history was significant for XXXX XXXXXX and that this genetic condition has long-term effects on children’s developmental outcomes. These effects include XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, as well as physical and XXXXXX XXXXX. XXX found that the student’s current XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXs could not be formally assessed as XX was not able to demonstrate an understanding of directions, general awareness of tasks, manipulate items, or focus on task items. XXX abilities were best communicated by XXXXXXX and XXX adaptive abilities measured by both parent and teacher, which were within the XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX. 34. XX. XXXXXXX discussed XXX evaluation with the parent, speaking in both XXXXXXX-XXXXX and XXXXXXX. XXX answered the parent’s questions regarding the evaluation and reaffirmed that the student continued to demonstrate characteristics of a student with an XXXXXXXX XXXXX and, therefore, continued to qualify for ESE services as a student with XXX eligibility.

10 35. During a XXXXX XX, XXXX, review of reevaluation results meeting, the student’s eligibility category and XXX placement were discussed. The team determined that the student continued to meet the criteria for XXX eligibility, and that XX should continue receiving services in a XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX to receive specialized instruction for academics, behavior, independent functioning, and communication with continued language and occupational therapy. 36. The student’s parent expressed displeasure with the school IEP team’s decisions solely on the basis that the IEP prevented XXX XXXXX enrollment at XXX school of choice. The student’s XXXXXX testified that when the preferred school reviewed the IEP, the family was informed that the IEP could not be implemented at that school. Thus, the family would like the IEP amended to allow the student to enroll in the preferred school. Following the IEP meeting, XXX XXXXX, the Due Process Coordinator for the School Board, assisted the parent in applying for a McKay Scholarship, a Florida State program providing school choice to qualifying students. Five school options were identified; all had an XXX program and could implement the student’s IEP. The parent selected a school, and the scholarship was awarded. The parent, however, never enrolled the student at the selected school. Later, in XXXXXXX XXXX, the parent once again requested assistance with the McKay Scholarship program. XXX XXXXX contacted the McKay Scholarship Office and spoke with the Principal of the previously selected school to confirm that an opening remained for the student. A McKay Scholarship was offered a second time but the parent never enrolled the student. 37. At the due process hearing, the parent continued to request that the student’s IEP be amended so that XX could attend a school of XXX choice. Specifically, the parent would like the XXX eligibility removed from the IEP, as XXX believes that the XXX eligibility category is impeding XXXXXX XXX ability to enroll in XXX school of choice.

11 38. Uncontroverted evidence establishes that the student has always been properly identified as a student with XXX eligibility, and that a XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX is the LRE required to meet XXX individual educational needs. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 39. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sect. 1003.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 6.03311(9). 40. This case arises under the IDEA, which requires public schools to provide exceptional students a FAPE as a condition of receiving federal funds. In enacting the 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 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 Cty. 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). 41. To accomplish these objectives, the federal government provides funding to participating state and local educational agencies, which is contingent on each agency's compliance with the IDEA’s procedural and substantive requirements. Doe v. Ala. State Dep’t of Educ., 915 F.2d 651, 654 (11th Cir. 1990). Thus, parents and children with disabilities are accorded substantial procedural safeguards to ensure that the purposes of the IDEA are fully realized. Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 205-06 (1982). 42. Among other protections, parents are entitled to examine their child’s records and participate in meetings concerning their child's education;

12 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 relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement 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). 43. 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). That is, as applied to this case, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the student’s XXX eligibility is incorrect, and that XXX placement in a XXXXXX XXX XXXXX is not the LRE. 44. Petitioner presented one witness, the student’s XXXXXX, who testified that the XXXX eligibility was keeping XXXXXXXX from attending the parent’s school of choice. Petitioner presented no evidence, in any form, establishing that the IEP team incorrectly identified the student’s eligibility category or that the IEP team failed to place the student in the LRE. 45. The School Board, despite not bearing the burden of proof, presented competent and substantial evidence to support the IEP team’s identification and placement for the student. 46. In order to meet the criteria for the XXX eligibility category, a student must have significantly below average general intellectual and adaptive functioning manifested during the developmental period, with significant delays in academic skills. The developmental period refers to birth to 18 years of age. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 6A-6.03011(1). 47. More specifically, a minimum XXX eligibility evaluation must include: (a) A standardized individual test of XXXXXX XXXXXXX individually administered by a professional person qualified in accordance with rule 6A -4.0311, F.A.C. or licensed under chapter 490, F.S.; (b) A standardized assessment of adaptive behavior to include parental or guardian input;

13 (c) An i ndividually administered standardized test of academic or pre -academic achievement. A standardized developmental scale shall be used when a student’s level of functioning cannot be measured by an academic or pre -academic test; and, (d) A social -developmental history, which has been compiled directly from the parent, guardian, or primary caregiver. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-6.03011(3). 48. The School Board has met the minimum evaluation requirements. As described in detail in the Findings of Fact, the evaluation was conducted by a qualified professional and the evaluations done in XXXX and in XXXX met all the above requirements. 49. The criteria for XXX eligibility are as follows: (a) The measured level of intellectual functioning is more than two (2) standard deviations below the mean on an individually measured, standardized test of intellectual functioning; (b) The level of adaptive functioning is more than two (2) standard deviations below the mean on the adaptive behavior composite or on two (2) out of three (3) domains on a standardized test of adaptive behavior. The adaptive behavior measure shall include parental or guardian input; (c) The level of academic or pre -academic performance on a standardized test is consistent with the perform ance expected of a student of comparable intellectual functioning; (d) The social/developmental history identifies the developmental, familial, medical/health, and environmental factors impacting student functioning and documents the student’s functional skills outside of the school environment; and, (e) The student nee ds special education as defined in rules 6A-6.0331 and 6A-6.03411, F.A.C.

14 Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-6.03011(4). 50. As detailed in the Findings of Fact, the student was properly identified and meets the criteria for XXX eligibility. 51. Turning to the issue of placement, schools must consider when to educate a student in a XXXXXXX XXXX environment. 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 ch ildren 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. 52. 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 needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services. 34 C.F.R. § 300.115. 53. 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).

15 54. 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 tailor each child's educational placement and program to XXX special needs.” Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ., 874 F.2d 1036, 1044 (5th Cir. 1989). 55. 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. 56. 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 XX will receive in a XXXXX-XXXX special education environment; 2) what effect the presence of the student in a XXXXXX 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

16 necessary to achieve a satisfactory education for the student in a XXXXXX classroom. Id. at 697. 57. Here, Petitioner failed to establish that the student should be placed in a XXXXXXXX XXXXX environment. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that the student cannot, due to the nature and severity of XXX disability, be satisfactorily educated in a XXXXXX classroom, and that the student has been mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate. ORDER Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s Complaint is DISMISSED and all requests for relief are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this XXX day of XXXX, XXXX, 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 XXX day of XXXX, XXX. COPIES FURNISHED:

17 XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX, Esquire School Board of Broward County K. C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) XXXXXXX XXXX ,Esquire School Board of Broward County 600 Southeast 3rd Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) XXXXXXXX XXXXXX, Dispute Resolution Program Director Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services Turlington Building, Suite 614 Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Petitioner (Address of Record) XXXXX XXXXXX, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Floor 10 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 XXXXXX XXXXXXX, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

18 This decision is final unless, within 90 days after the date of this decision, an adversely affected party: a) brings a civil acti on in the appropriate state circuit court pursuant to s ection 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).