Citrus | Case 16-1591 | 2016-06-13

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CITRUS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 16-1591E **, Respondent. _________________________________/ FINAL ORDER Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted in Inverness, Florida, on May 4, 2016, before Administrative Law Judge Edward T. Bauer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. APPEARANCES For Petitioner: Terry J. Harmon, Esquire Sniffen & Spellman, P.A. XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX R. Wesley Bradshaw, Esquire Bradshaw & Mountjoy, P.A. XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX For Respondent: Respondent, pro se (Address of Record)

2 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE Whether the School Board's assessments of Respondent were appropriate. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT From February through October 2015, Petitioner Citrus County School Board ("School Board") conducted multiple assessments of Respondent, which included: a psychoeducational evaluation; a functional behavioral assessment; and assessments in the areas of occupational therapy, physical therapy, and language. Thereafter, on March 9, 2016, Respondent's mother expressed her disagreement with these assessments and requested an independent educational evaluation ("IEE") in connection with each evaluated area. On March 17, 2016, the School Board filed a Request for a Due Process Hearing ("Complaint"), alleging that its evaluations were appropriate and that the parent's request should be denied.1/ As noted above, the final hearing was held on May 4, 2016, during which testimony was heard from eight witnesses: Nancy Haynes; Sarah Hebert; Krista Roland; Dr. Gail Purdy; Sherrie Ramsay; Dr. Samantha Yox; Teresa Pinder; and Respondent's mother. In addition, the following exhibits were received in evidence: Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 8, 12, and 14 through 16; and Respondent's Exhibits 22 through 31; and 36 through 38.2/

3 The final hearing Transcript was filed on May 16, 2016.3/ The parties thereafter submitted proposed final orders, which the undersigned has considered. For stylistic convenience, the undersigned will use male pronouns in this Final Order when referring to Respondent. The male pronouns are neither intended, nor should be interpreted, as a reference to Respondent's actual gender. Unless otherwise noted, all statutory and rule citations are to the versions in effect at the time the School Board performed the assessments at issue. FINDINGS OF FACT I. Background 1. Respondent is a sixteen-year-old child who was authorized to receive, at all relevant times, special education and related services pursuant to the Autism Spectrum Disorder and Language Impaired eligibility categories. 2. In late 2012, Respondent and his mother relocated from Seminole County to Citrus County, where they continue to reside. Since that time, Respondent has received all of his academic instruction at home, with his mother serving as a "learning coach." 3. As noted earlier, this proceeding involves an array of assessments conducted by the School Board during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 academic years. The first, a behavioral

4 assessment, was performed at the mother's request in February 2015. Some months later, on June 2, 2015, the School Board secured the mother's consent to reevaluate Respondent in the following areas: psychoeducational; language (with a focus on pragmatic language); occupational therapy (with a focus on dyspraxia and dysgraphia); and physical therapy (with a focus on dyspraxia and core strength). 4. Following the completion of these assessments, the mother requested IEEs in connection with each evaluated area, prompting the School Board to initiate the instant proceeding. The details of the School Board's assessments are recounted below, beginning with the Functional Behavioral Assessment. II. Functional Behavioral Assessment 5. As explained during the final hearing, a functional behavioral assessment ("FBA") is a process that attempts to identify the purpose and function of problem behaviors. Once completed, an FBA becomes the basis of a behavioral intervention plan ("BIP"), whose terms are designed to address conduct that interferes with a child's ability to learn. 6. The FBA at issue was conducted by Gail Purdy, a Board Certified Behavior Analyst who holds a Ph.D in psychology. Dr. Purdy is licensed as both a school psychologist and a clinical psychologist, and has conducted hundreds of FBAs during her ten-year career with the School Board.

5 7. Dr. Purdy's FBA comprised three principal elements: a review of Respondent's educational records, which included copies of previous behavioral plans; an interview of Respondent's mother (who, as noted above, was educating Respondent at home as the child's "learning coach"); and, finally, an observation of Respondent in his educational setting. 8. Dr. Purdy's interview with the mother was conducted on February 10, 2015, at Respondent's home. During the course of the interview, the mother characterized Respondent as artistic, intelligent, and a creative thinker. The mother further advised, however, that Respondent frequently exhibited off-task (i.e., "resistance") behaviors, including procrastination and "shutting down." 9. Having identified the problem conduct, Dr. Purdy shifted the focus of her interview to the function of the off- task behavior. To that end, Dr. Purdy had the XXXXXX complete two questionnaires: the Functional Analysis Screening Tool ("FAST"), an instrument used to identify the factors influencing the occurrence of problem behaviors; and the Motivation Assessment Scale ("MAS"), which is designed to identify the situations in which a student is likely to behave in certain ways. Based upon the mother's responses, Dr. Purdy hypothesized

6 that the functions of Respondent's problem behavior were "escape" and, to a lesser extent, "access to tangibles." 10. With this hypothesis in place, Dr. Purdy conducted a home-based observation of Respondent at his study area. Unfortunately, the observation, which lasted roughly two to three hours, was less than ideal, for Respondent was off task nearly the entire time. Nevertheless, Dr. Purdy's credible testimony establishes that the observation——which included an interview of the child——yielded sufficient information to complete an appropriate FBA.4/ 11. Dr. Purdy finalized Respondent's FBA in writing on March 4, 2015. In addition to detailing the nature of the problem behavior and its primary functions, the FBA also included a host of remedial measures. In particular, Dr. Purdy recommended, inter alia, that all "positive attempts at academic performance by [Respondent] should be praised and reinforced with intervals of successful participation gradually increased in duration"; that appropriate behaviors be reinforced by rewarding the child with free time to engage in preferred activities; that, prior to beginning a task, the child should be given a picture representation of what will be needed and the order of steps to complete it; and that "motor breaks" lasting three to five minutes should be provided after 30 to 34 minutes of cognitive effort.5/

7 12. Thereafter, in or around May 2015, Dr. Purdy discussed the finalized FBA with Respondent's mother. During the course of the meeting, the XXXXXX raised no objections to either the scope of the FBA or Dr. Purdy's methodology; on the contrary, the mother seemed "pretty happy" with the final product.6/ III. Psychoeducational Evaluation 13. Respondent's psychoeducational evaluation was performed by Sarah Hebert, a licensed school psychologist who has been employed with the School Board for the past ten years.7/ In connection with her employment, Ms. Hebert performs more than 100 psychoeducational evaluations annually. 14. The psychoeducational evaluation at issue, which Ms. Hebert conducted over the course of three sessions on separate days,8/ was preceded by an examination of Respondent's relevant educational records. In particular, Ms. Hebert reviewed multiple prior assessments, the results of which she later summarized in her report. Among other things, the records indicated that although Respondent's intelligence quotient ("IQ") was above average, he nevertheless exhibited a slight weakness in the area of cognitive fluency——that is, the speed with which a person processes information. Ms. Hebert also conducted a student interview, during which Respondent discussed his favorite school subjects and long-term goals.

8 15. Ms. Hebert thereafter evaluated Respondent utilizing a variety of standardized assessment tools, each of which is valid and reliable. First, Ms. Hebert administered the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales ("RIAS"), a traditional IQ test which provides a Composite Intelligence Index ("CIX") score, a Composite Memory Index ("CMX"), as well as Verbal ("VIX") and Nonverbal ("NIX") Intelligence scores. As delineated in the final report, Respondent's results were as follows: a CIX of 105, placing the child's overall IQ at the 63rd percentile; a VIX of 109 (73rd percentile), indicating vocabulary development and verbal reasoning abilities within the higher end of the average range; a NIX of 102 (55th percentile), placing Respondent in the average range; and a CMX of 103 (58th percentile), also in the average range. Specifically with regard to the CMX score, the subtest results demonstrated that Respondent is better able to remember information acquired visually rather than auditorily. 16. Next, Ms. Hebert administered the Delis-Kaplan Executive Functioning System ("D-KEFS"), a standardized instrument that assesses a person's ability to organize and process information. As explained during the final hearing, Ms. Hebert utilized two particular D-KEFS subtests: Trail Making, which measures visual scanning, sequencing, motor speed, and cognitive flexibility; and Code-Word Interference, which

9 assesses inhibition (i.e., the ability to suppress non- functional behaviors and thoughts), rapid naming, and cognitive flexibility. Respondent's scores on the subtest components fell within the average range in the areas of visual scanning, sequencing, motor speed, and inhibition, and in the above average range in the area of cognitive flexibility. 17. In addition to the foregoing assessments, Ms. Hebert utilized two other standardized tools: the NEPSY-II, which assess a variety of neurocognitive processes, including the formulation of concepts, classification skills, cognitive flexibility, and "theory of mind"——the ability to discern the beliefs and emotions of others; and the Kaufman Test of Academic Achievement–Third Edition ("KTEA-3"), which assess academic skills in the areas of reading, reading understanding, written language, and math. Respondent's performance on the NEPSY-II was largely unremarkable, with one exception: the child scored in the borderline range in the area of theory of mind, suggesting some difficulties in taking the perspective of others. As for the KTEA-3, Respondent scored in the average range in each of the four academic areas. 18. To round out the evaluation, Ms. Hebert administered the Asperger Syndrome Diagnostic Scale ("ASDS"), a questionnaire that helps evaluate the symptoms of Asperger's Disorder; and the Behavior Assessment System of Children–Second Edition ("BASC-

10 II"), a widely used tool for assessing problem behaviors at home. The questionnaire responses to the ASDS, as supplied by the mother and a speech pathologist familiar with Respondent, varied markedly. In particular, the mother's responses revealed a very likely probability of Asperger's Disorder, while the input of the speech pathologist suggested the exact opposite. With respect to the BASC-II, which comprises parent rating scales and a self-report of personality by the child, the results demonstrated concerns in the areas of externalizing problems and adaptive skills, as well as milder concerns regarding internalizing problems. 19. Based upon the foregoing assessment data (as well as information derived from two informal tools9/), Ms. Hebert formulated a host of suggestions. Ms. Hebert recommended, for instance, the increased use of visual teaching aids; the provision of direct instruction in social skills, with a specific emphasis on understanding the perspectives of others; and the use of various teaching strategies——enumerated in her final report——to promote better understanding of inferential questions and expository text, two particular areas of weakness. Ms. Hebert also provided substantial, detailed recommendations concerning Respondent's social and emotional development.

11 IV. Occupational Therapy Evaluation 20. The undersigned turns now to the occupational therapy evaluation, which was conducted by Sherrie Ramsay, a licensed occupational therapist who has performed hundreds of evaluations during her 20-year career. 21. As reflected in her final report, Ms. Ramsay began the evaluation process by conducting a thorough review of Respondent's educational records. In particular, Ms. Ramsay examined the child's current IEP, a prior assistive technology evaluation, and two occupational therapy evaluations performed by the Seminole County School Board. 22. Consistent with the terms of the parental consent form dated June 20, 2015, the ensuing evaluation, which Ms. Ramsay performed over two hours in a simulated educational environment,10/ focused on two areas of concern: dysgraphia, the inability to write coherently; and dyspraxia, a disorder characterized by poor coordination. With respect to the former, Ms. Ramsay required the child to complete a written work sample on standard notebook paper. Respondent's sample revealed, among other things, occasional inaccuracies in letter formation——a deficiency Respondent attempted to correct by "writing over" his work instead of erasing and re-writing. The sample was otherwise unremarkable; using a "functional dynamic quadruped

12 grasp," Respondent was able to maintain consistent spacing between words and keep his written output between the lines. 23. To explore the other area of concern, dyspraxia, Ms. Ramsay utilized a variety of reliable evaluative tools, including the eery-Buktenica Test of Visual Motor Integration ("VMI"). Respondent's performance on the VMI yielded a standard score of 101, indicating average visual-motor coordination skills. Ms. Ramsay also administered the Nine Hole Peg Test, whose results suggested above average finger dexterity.11/ Finally, Ms. Ramsay observed Respondent solve a hand-held wire maze "without evidence of shaking the maze, switching hands, or using the non-dominant hand to assist."12/ 24. Collectively, the evaluative tools indicated that Respondent's visual motor integration skill and dexterity fall within the average or above average ranges. Due, however, to the letter formation inaccuracies, Ms. Ramsay recommended that Respondent be permitted to use a word processing device to complete his schoolwork. V. Physical Therapy Evaluation 25. Respondent's physical therapy evaluation was conducted by Samantha Yox, a licensed professional who holds a Doctor of Physical Therapy from the University of South Florida. 26. As explained during the final hearing, the purpose of Dr. Yox's evaluation was to determine if functional limitations

13 were impeding Respondent's academic success. More specifically, and in accordance with the June 20, 2015, consent document, the evaluation was to focus on the particular concerns of dyspraxia, core strength, and endurance. 27. As with the other assessments detailed earlier, Dr. Yox's evaluation began with a review of Respondent's educational records. Dr. Yox thereafter assessed the child using a variety of reliable tools, which included the Pediatric Balance Scale, the Six Minute Walk Test, and a clinical observation. 28. As the evaluation unfolded, Respondent demonstrated full range of motion in his upper and lower extremities; the ability to balance on each lower extremity without loss of balance, fatigue, or postural sway; the ability to transition and transfer with full independence; normal endurance, as evidenced by the child's performance on the Six Minute Walk Test (he traversed 659 meters within the allotted time, placing him comfortably within the average range of performance of 619 to 761 meters for males in his age group); "good" muscle strength; and the ability to engage in a variety of tasks——e.g., jumping jacks, "superstars," and "seal jacks"——requiring the simultaneous coordination of his upper and lower extremities. All told, Dr. Yox’s evaluation revealed no physical limitations

14 that would prevent Respondent from accessing his educational environment. VI. Language Evaluation 29. The undersigned turns finally to the language evaluation, which was performed on October 8, 2015, by Krista Roland, a licensed speech pathologist with 20 years' experience. Ms. Roland, who holds a master’s degree in Communication Science and Disorders from the University of Texas, is recognized by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association as highly qualified in her field. 30. Ms. Roland's evaluation, which correctly focused on the area of language pragmatics (the area of concern identified in the consent document), was preceded by an exhaustive review of Respondent's cumulative file. Next, with the aim of identifying other potential areas of concern, Ms. Roland asked the mother to complete a series of checklists, namely, the Parent Pragmatic Checklist and the Learning Coach Pragmatic Checklist.13/ The mother's responses to the checklists indicated, among other things, that the child has difficulty understanding the feelings of others based on non-verbal cues. The responses also suggested that Respondent does not adjust his language to suit the person to whom he is speaking. For instance, Respondent is just as prone to tell an inappropriate

15 joke to a stranger as he is to a member of his family or a close acquaintance. 31. With this background information in place, Ms. Roland administered the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language ("CASL"), a standardized and reliable instrument which measures the processes of comprehension, expression, and retrieval in four language categories: lexical (word meaning); syntactic (grammatical forms); supralinguistic (the ability to comprehend language when the meaning is not easily discernable from the lexical or grammatical information); and pragmatic (the ability to modify language to suit a particular situation). The child's subtest responses yielded an overall composite score of 98 (45th percentile), placing Respondent in the average range. Notably, however, Respondent's performance in the subtest area of pragmatic judgment was lower than his results from 2012, suggesting a decline in his pragmatic skills in comparison to same-age peers. 32. Ms. Roland also administered the Social Language Development Test-Adolescent ("SLDT-A"), which provides diagnostic information about a child's ability to use age appropriate social skills. As detailed in Ms. Roland's final report, the SLDT-A is composed of five subtests: making inferences; interpreting social language; problem solving; social interaction; and interpreting ironic statements. The

16 child fared especially poorly on the first three subtests, contributing to a below average total score of 77 (6th percentile). 33. Two other elements comprised Respondent's language evaluation: the Adolescent Conversational Analysis, which provides a baseline percentage of conversational or pragmatic skills that are appropriate versus inappropriate; and an informal probe of Respondent's ability to understand and use appropriate intonation and tone of voice.14/ 34. Having thoroughly assessed Respondent's language abilities, Ms. Roland formulated a number of specific recommendations. First, she suggested that Respondent would benefit from consistent opportunities to socialize with new communication partners in his age group. Ms. Roland further recommended that, should the child return to a traditional learning environment, school staff should address Respondent's issues with "recognizing appropriate talk time, following directions, and inhibiting verbalizations."15/ Finally, Ms. Roland suggested that future communication goals, to be delineated in the child's IEP, "focus on teaching appropriate interrupting behaviors in the classroom setting," as well as "non-verbal communication skills and expressive verbal reasoning tasks."16/

17 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Jurisdiction 35. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of the parties thereto pursuant to section 1003.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03311(9)(u). II. General Principles of the IDEA 36. District school boards are required by the Florida K-20 Education Code to provide for an "appropriate program of special instruction, facilities, and services for exceptional students [ESE] as prescribed by the State Board of Education as acceptable." §§ 1001.42(4)(l) & 1003.57, Fla. Stat. 37. The Florida K-20 Education Code's imposition of the requirement that exceptional students receive special education and related services is necessary in order for the State of Florida to be eligible to receive federal funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), which mandates, among other things, that participating states ensure, with limited exceptions, that a "free appropriate public education is available to all children with disabilities residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21." 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A); Phillip C. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 701 F.3d 691, 694 (11th Cir. 2012).

18 III. Independent Evaluations at Public Expense 38. Under the IDEA and its implementing regulations, a parent of a child with a disability is entitled, under certain circumstances, to obtain an independent educational evaluation of the child at public expense. The circumstances under which a parent has a right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense are set forth in 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b), which provides as follows: Parent right to evaluation at public expense. (1) A parent has the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the public agency, subject to the conditions in paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this section. (2) If a parent requests an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the public agency must, without unnecessary delay, either-- (i) File a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate; or (ii) Ensure that an independent educational evaluation is provided at public expense, unless the agency demonstrates in a hearing pursuant to §§ 300.507 through 300.513 that the evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet agency criteria. (3) If the public agency files a due process complaint notice to request a hearing and the final decision is that the agency's evaluation is appropriate, the parent still has the right to an independent

19 educational evaluation, but not at public expense. (4) If a parent requests an independent educational evaluation, the public agency may ask for the parent's reason why he or she objects to the public evaluation. However, the public agency may not require the parent to provide an explanation and may not unreasonably delay either providing the independent educational evaluation at public expense or filing a due process complaint to request a due process hearing to defend the public evaluation. (5) A parent is entitled to only one independent educational evaluation at public expense each time the public agency conducts an evaluation with which the parent disagrees. 39. Florida law, specifically Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03311(6), provides similarly as follows: (a) A parent of a student with a disability has the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the school district. * * * (g) If a parent requests an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the school district must, without unnecessary delay either: 1. Ensure that an independent educational evaluation is provided at public expense; or 2. Initiate a due process hearing under this rule to show that its evaluation is appropriate or that the evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet the school district's criteria. If the school district initiates a hearing and the final decision

20 from the hearing is that the district's evaluation is appropriate, then the parent still has a right to an independent educational evaluation, but not at public expense. (h) If a parent requests an independent educational evaluation, the school district may ask the parent to give a reason why he or she objects to the school district's evaluation. However, the explanation by the parent may not be required and the school district may not unreasonably delay either providing the independent educational evaluation at public expense or initiating a due process hearing to defend the school district's evaluation. (i) A parent is entitled to only one (1) independent educational evaluation at public expense each time the school district conducts an evaluation with which the parent disagrees. 40. These provisions make clear that a district school board in Florida is not automatically required to provide a publicly funded independent educational evaluation whenever a parent asks for one. A school board has the option, when presented with such a parental request, to initiate a due process hearing to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that its own evaluation is appropriate. T.P. v. Bryan Cnty. Sch. Dist., 792 F.3d 1284, 1287 n.5 (11th Cir. 2015). If the district school board is able to meet its burden and establish the appropriateness of its evaluation, it is relieved of any obligation to provide the requested independent educational evaluation.

21 41. To satisfy its burden of proof, Petitioner must demonstrate that the assessments at issue complied with Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.0331(5), which sets forth the elements of an appropriate evaluation. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. **, 66 IDELR 29 (Fla. DOAH July 2, 2015). Rule 6A- 6.0331(5) provides as follows: (5) Evaluation procedures. (a) In conducting an evaluation, the school district: 1. Must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the student within a data- based problem solving process, including information about the student's response to evidence-based interventions as applicable, and information provided by the parent. This evaluation data may assist in determining whether the student is eligible for ESE and the content of the student's individual educational plan (IEP) or educational plan (EP), including information related to enabling the student with a disability to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum (or for a preschool child, to participate in appropriate activities), or for a gifted student's needs beyond the general curriculum; 2. Must not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a student is eligible for ESE and for determining an appropriate educational program for the student; and, 3. Must use technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in

22 addition to physical or developmental factors. (b) Each school district must ensure that assessments and other evaluation materials and procedures used to assess a student are: 1. Selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis; 2. Provided and administered in the student's native language or other mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the student knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so; 3. Used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable; and, 4. Administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments. (c) Assessments and other evaluation materials and procedures shall include those tailored to assess specific areas of educational need and not merely those that are designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient. (d) Assessments shall be selected and administered so as to best ensure that if an assessment is administered to a student with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the assessment results accurately reflect the student's aptitude or achievement level or whatever other factors the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the student's sensory, manual, or speaking skills, unless those are the factors the test purports to measure.

23 (e) The school district shall use assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the student. (f) A student shall be assessed in all areas related to a suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities. (g) An evaluation shall be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of a student's ESE needs, whether or not commonly linked to the suspected disability. 42. Pursuant to the findings of fact contained herein, the School Board has proven that the assessments at issue fully complied with rule 6A-6.0331(5). In particular, each assessment was conducted by trained and knowledgeable personnel who utilized——and properly administered——a variety of valid instruments that yielded reliable and comprehensive information concerning Respondent's educational needs. 43. Before concluding, the undersigned notes that while Respondent is not entitled to an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the mother is free to obtain an independent evaluation at her own expense, whose results the School District would be required to consider. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-6.03311(6)(j)1. (providing that if a parent "shares with the school district an evaluation obtained at private expense . . . [t]he school district shall consider the results

24 of such evaluation in any decision regarding the provision of FAPE to the student, if it meets appropriate district criteria"). CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that Respondent is not entitled to an Independent Educational Evaluation at public expense. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2016,17/ in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ Edward T. Bauer 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 13th day of June, 2016. ENDNOTES 1/ Respondent's mother also requested an IEE in connection with an assistive technology ("AT") evaluation conducted in October 2014. However, testimony adduced at the outset of the final hearing conclusively proved that the October 2014 evaluation was itself an IEE——furnished by the School Board at the mother's

25 request——that related to an AT evaluation performed in July 2014. As a parent is entitled, at most, to one IEE in connection with a particular assessment, see Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-6.03311(6)(i); Warren G. v. Cumberland County School District, 190 F.3d 80, 87 n.4 (3d Cir. 1999), the undersigned relieved the School Board of any obligation to prove the appropriateness of either AT evaluation. Tr. 40:10-13. 2/ The parties' exhibits were admitted in their entirety and without restrictions, save for the following: all e-mails and/or due process hearing requests attached to Respondent's Exhibits 20 through 27, which have been disregarded; and Respondent's Exhibits 36 through 38, which have been received for background purposes only. Tr. 218:14-25; 288:11-23 3/ Although this Final Order includes several citations to the record to highlight particular testimony or exhibits, the findings and conclusions contained herein are not based solely on the evidence specifically cited but, rather, on the undersigned's review and consideration of the entire record. 4/ Tr. 249:6-9. 5/ Pet'r Ex. 3, pp. 25-26. 6/ Tr. 269:2-8. 7/ Ms. Hebert holds master's and educational specialist degrees in the field of school psychology. 8/ Ms. Hebert credibly testified that although Respondent was fatigued during testing session, the child was nevertheless attentive, alert, and able to complete the required tasks. Tr. 141:25-143:23. As such, there is no persuasive evidence that the child's fatigue detracted from the validity and reliability of the assessment. 9/ In particular, Ms. Hebert utilized a sentence completion test (Purcell Incomplete Sentences) as an informal means of gathering information on Respondent's thoughts and feelings regarding a range of topics. Ms. Hebert also administered the VIA Strength Survey for Children, a non-standardized questionnaire that allows the examinee to self-identify areas of strength. 10/ Tr. 78:2-19.

26 11/ Ms. Ramsay compared Respondent's results on the Nine Hole Peg Test to normed standards published in the American Journal of Occupational Therapy. Pet'r Ex. 4, p. 30. 12/ Pet'r Ex. 4, p. 30. Ms. Ramsay also administered a complex written maze, which Respondent completed successfully. Id. 13/ Ms. Roland also received completed checklists from several of the child's former teachers. Pet'r Ex. 6, pp. 51-52. 14/ During her final hearing testimony, Ms. Roland conceded that the evaluation did not include an observation of Respondent conversing or interacting with peers. She credibly explained, however, that such an observation would have been inappropriate in this instance, as Respondent did not have any opportunities for peer interaction: Q. [He] was receiving [his] educational instruction in the home environment, delivered by whoever delivered it. But [his] learning coach was [his] mother. A. That is my understanding. Q. Okay. And so in terms of evaluating [him] with peers in the school setting, [he's] not a student in the school – A. There was not an opportunity for an authentic peer observation. Q. That's what I was going to say. If you had -- let me ask: If [he] had come for your evaluation and you said, let's go sit in the cafeteria, go have a conversation with kids, would that have been a reliable way to evaluate [his] peer-to-peer conversations? A. I don't believe that would have been appropriate, because it wouldn't be a naturally occurring context. That would really be a contrived situation. So whether that is typical of him, it would be hard to say.

27 * * * Q. Setting that aside, that inability to have looked at a peer communication portion, do you have any concerns that not being able to do that in any way affects the validity or the appropriateness of the evaluation conducted? A. No. Tr. 203:1-18; 204:23-205:3. 15/ Pet'r Ex. 6, p. 60. 16/ Pet'r Ex. 6, p. 60. 17/ By order dated May 31, 2016, the undersigned extended the deadline for the issuance of this Final Order to June 13, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry J. Harmon, Esquire Sniffen & Spellman, P.A. 123 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) R. Wesley Bradshaw, Esquire Bradshaw & Mountjoy, P.A. 209 Courthouse Square Inverness, Florida 34450 (eServed) Respondent (Address of Record-eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)

28 Liz Conn, Dispute Resolution Program Director Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 614 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Sandra Himmel, Superintendent Citrus County School Board 1007 West Main Street Inverness, Florida 34450 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).