Orange | Case 18-5683 | 2019-01-04

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 18-5683EDM **, 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), in Altamonte Springs, Florida, on xxxxxxxx xx, xxxx, and xxxxxxxxx through x,xxxx. A fourth day of hearing was held on xxxxxxxxxx xx, xxxx, by video- teleconference with sites in Altamonte Springs, Florida, and Tallahassee, Florida. APPEARANCES For Petitioner: xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx, Esquire Orange County Public Schools 445 West Amelia Street Orlando, Florida 32801 For Respondent: xxxxxxx xxxxxx, Qualified Representative 1642 North Volusia Avenue, Suite 201 Orange City, Florida 32763

2 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE Whether the placement recommended by the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team, which is in a xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx school, is the XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX (XXX) for the student. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT A request for an expedited due process hearing was filed on xxxxxxx xx, xxxx. On xxxxxxx xx, xxxx, Respondent filed a motion to accept xxxxxxxxxx as a Qualified Representative, and the Orange County School Board (School Board) did not object to the granting of the motion. On xxxxxxxx x, xxxx, the undersigned entered an Order granting the request to accept xxxxxxxxxx as a Qualified Representative. On that same date, a hearing was scheduled for xxxxxxxx xx, xxxx. On xxxxxxxx x, xxxx, Respondent filed an Emergency Motion for Continuance, which was opposed by the School Board. An Order Granting Continuance was entered on xxxxxxxx x, xxxx, setting the hearing date for xxxxxxxx xx, xxxx. On xxxxxxxx x, xxxx, Petitioner filed a Motion to Establish and Continue Stay Put. The School Board filed its Opposition to Respondent’s Request to Establish and Continue Stay Put on xxxxxxxx xx, xxxx, arguing that the student presented a xxxxx xxxxxx to the faculty and other students of School A. A motion hearing was held on xxxxxxxx xx, xxxx. During the telephone

3 conference, the School Board stated that the recommended change in placement was not xxxxxxxxx-related; rather, it was based on an IEP team’s recommendation, which was focused on the student’s xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx. Since the School Board argued that the change in placement was not xxxxxxxxxx-related, and was not a recommendation for placement in an interim alternative educational setting, the undersigned ordered that the student remain in the last agreed upon placement, which was School A. In Florida, a school district may not place a student in an exceptional student education xxxxxx, which is what the School Board here is seeking, 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. Accordingly, the Motion to Establish and Continue Stay Put was granted. The hearing was held on November 29, and December 5, 6, and 11, xxxx. At the due process hearing, the parties called XXX witnesses to testify. Joint Exhibits 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, and 13 were admitted. School Board Exhibits 3, page 35 of Exhibit 4, page 37 of Exhibit 5, and 7 were admitted. Respondent Exhibits 9 through 13, 15, 16, 19 through 24, and 26 through 32 were admitted.

4 The transcript of the due process hearing was not filed with DOAH; thus, this Final Order was prepared without the benefit of a transcript. At the conclusion of the due process hearing, the parties agreed to file proposed orders by xxxxxxxx xx, xxxx. The final order was to be entered XX school days after the conclusion of the due process hearing, which, based on the school calendar, required entry of the final order by no later than xxxxxxx x,xxxx. 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 xxxxxx pronouns in this Final Order when referring to Respondent. The xxxxxx pronouns are neither intended, nor should be interpreted, as a reference to Respondent’s actual gender. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The student is a xx-year-old xxxxxxx grader eligible for exceptional student education (ESE) under the categories of xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx (xxx) and xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx(xx). xxx is educated in a xxxxxxxxxxxxxx classroom, which consists of xxxxx to xxxx adults serving xxxx students. 2. The student is described as xxxxx, xxxxxx, and xxxxx. xxx is unlike xxx peers in that xxx frequently exhibits xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx, including xxxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxx

5 xxxxxxxxx so xxxxxxx in nature that they often result in xxxxxxx xxxxxx students or staff. xxx xxxxxx have involved xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxx, and are described as much more xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx to the classroom than xxx peers’ xxxxxx. xxx xxxxxxxxxxx behaviors are present across all settings during the school day, and are present on a xxxxxxxxx basis. 3. xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx were well documented; the following is a sampling from an IEP developed in September xxxx: [**] is currently in a xxxxxxxx class in a xxxx xxxxx setting with xxxxx other students. Xx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx (xxxx) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx have been implemented for [**] since the beginning of the xxxx-xxxx school year. Based on data from xxxx-xxxx school year, [**] has had xxxx[1/] incidents of xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx, x incident of xxxx-xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx, xx incidents of xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xx incidents of xxxxxxxx and x incidents of xxxxxxxxx. [**] has shown a xxx xxxxxxxxx for xxxx xxxxxx and becomes xxxxxxxx [sic] on specific students' xxxxxx. One of the xxxxx xxxxxxxx currently for [**] is a xxxxxxxx student located in a class nearby. Xxxxxxxxx modifications to the classroom environment have been made to xxxxx the xxxxxxx from being present. [**] is directed to wear xxxxxxxxxx and xxxx xxxxx is played in the classroom when the xxxxx student is xxxxxxxxxxxxx in the xxxxxx. Based on collected data, [**] has now begun xxxxxxx in search of the xxxxx student even when the xxxxx is not present. The classroom door of the xxxxx classroom must xxxxxx xxxxxx to xxxxxx the xxxxxx of all xxxxxxxx. Staff has created a system which allows xxxx students to xxxxxxxxxx (xx/xxxx

6 the xxxxx) without xxxxxx any xxxxxxx with one xxxxxxx. Another xxxxxxx for [**] that has been observed in the classroom is the xxx of xxxxxxxxxx phrases by staff. [**] has a xxx xxxxxxxxx for the phrases "xx", "xxxx", and "xxx xxxx." When these phrases are used towards another xxxxxxx, [**} has been observed to xxxxx from xxxxx assigned area to show xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx towards staff. The presence of these xxxxxxxx frequently leads to xxxx xxxxxxxxx aggression xxxxxx staff or students (xxxxxx, xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxx, xxxxxxx). [**] can be prompted with coping strategies at times, but often these strategies do not work when the xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx has begun. When [**] is engaging in xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx [xxx] is directed to have "xxxxx xxxx," which is a required relaxation by having xxxxx lay prone on a xxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxx on the floor. During this time, xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx(xxx} trained professionals xxxxxx [**]'s xxxx and xxxx to xxxxx any attempts at xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx. Xxxx trained professionals are required during a xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxx xxx trained professionals to implement the xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and xxx trained professional to xxxxxx with a xxxxx and compliance during the xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. While a xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx is being implemented, xxxxx other adults are required to come into the classroom to xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx of the other students. The average xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is xx to xx xxxxxxx long. Once [**] has met the xxxx xxxxxxxxx during the xxxxxxxxxxxxxx(lie in the prone position xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx in xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx for xxx minute), xxxxx is provided 3 simple compliance tasks (i.e. touch nose, touch head, etc.). Once [**]

7 has demonstrated compliance xxxxx is directed to a xxxxx in the xxxx area where xxxxx must complete a xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx task. Once this task is completed, [**] is returned to the task xxxxx was at before the xxxxxx. The xxxxxx typically lasts an average of xx xxxxxxx. Once [**] returns to xxxxx task, xxxxx often xxxxxxxxxxxx on the xxxxxxx and requires continuous xxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxxx strategies. [**] often displays an xxxxxxxxx with an unavailable activity (i.e. xxxxx xxxx xx xxxxx, xxxxx xxxx xxxxxx) or an item (xxx}. When xxxxxx this unavailable item or activity, [**] often becomes xxxxxxxx. [**] can sometimes be xxxxxxxxxx with xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxxx. Other times this xxxxxxxxx will result in xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx. 4. Every educator also observed that xxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx were a xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx to xxx access to education; that is, xxx is unable to learn skills due to xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx, and xxx xxxxxxxx to non-preferred tasks. In the September xxxx IEP, the following is stated: [**]’s xxxxxxxxx to ask for assistance, navigate the campus, and need for xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx to xxxx on task xxxxxxxxxxxxx effects [sic] [xxx] ability to xxxxxxxxxxxxx access the general education curriculum. [xxx] requires continuous xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx to ensure [xxx] safety. [**]’s disability effects [sic] [xxx] xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx with xxxxx and staff and [xxx] ability to independently participate in or complete non-preferred activities. Further, the evidence showed the student’s responses to xxxxxxxx were unlike xxx peers at School A; xxx essentially xxxxxxxxx the

8 classroom in such a manner that xxx demanded the xxxxxxxxx of xxxx adults, xxxxxxxxxx affecting the other students in the classroom and xxxxxxxxxxxx the xxxxxx of all in xxx vicinity. 5. School A, where xxx has been for the last xxx school years, addressed xxx xxxxxxxxx in multiple ways. xxx ESE teacher and aides implemented different xxxxxxxxxxxxx, and xxxxxxxx coaches were actively involved in implementing xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx (xxx). A xxxxxxxx Trainer and xxxxxxxx Analysts were also assigned to observe xxx, to work with the student, and to develop strategies to assist the classroom teachers and the student’s xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The staff gathered data on the student’s xxxxxxxx to attempt to identify the xxxxxxxx of the xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx, ultimately concluding that the student was seeking xxxxxx to preferred items and xxxxxxx to xxxxxx and avoid non-preferred activities. 6. A variety of xxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx learning strategies were employed, including social thinking, positive reinforcement, first/then options, teaching xxxxxxxxx as appropriate based on context rather than “right and wrong,” token board, visual schedule, a timer, counting to 10 to manage xxxxxxx, and graphic directions. 7. The student’s xxx was revised by the staff a few times, with no meaningful xxxxxxxxxxx seen in the student’s xxxxxxxx.

9 During xxx time at School A, xxx xxxxxxx peers and staff on a xxxxxxxx basis. 8. On xxxxxxxxx xx, xxxx, the IEP team gathered and ultimately recommended placement in a xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx school because the student was not making progress in the xxxxxxxxxxxxxx classroom, despite the variety of xxxxxxxx supports that had been employed. The student’s xxxxxx did not provide consent to the recommended placement at the IEP meeting, and requested time to review the recommended placement. 9. On xxxxxxx xx, xxxx, the IEP team reconvened. The parent’s advocate requested that the student have a xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx Technician (xxx) serve as xxx XXX-on-XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; that the xxx train all staff at School A who are working with the student, and that a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx Analyst (xxxx) provide direct services to the student for xx percent of the time. 10. School B, which is the xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx school recommended for the student, is a xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx school, designed to meet the needs of students with xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx. The School Board has agreed to xxx the xxxxxxxx for the student’s placement at School B. School B employs a xxxxxx trained xxxxxxxxxx staff and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx personnel.

10 11. Respondent presented the testimony of xxx xxxxx, xxx who works with the student xx xxxx and observed the student xxxx while in the classroom, and xxx who observed the student for xxx day at school. Both analysts agreed that xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx (xxx) techniques are helpful to the student, and that the student seems to be making some progress at home and at school. To the extent that the xxxxxx testimony is inconsistent with that of the School Board witnesses, the undersigned finds the testimony of the educators more reliable and consistent with the record as a whole. The record is replete with xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx reports, as well as written records and oral statements of xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx by the staff due to the student’s xxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxx, and xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx. 12. In this case, the evidence clearly demonstrated that the student cannot be satisfactorily educated in the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx classroom with the use of supplemental aids and services. Further, the student has been mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate and placement in a xxxxxxx xxx school is necessary due to the student's xxxxxxxx. Given these facts, placement in the xxxxxxx xxx school is appropriate. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 13. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

11 proceeding. §§ 1003.57(1)(b) 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 IDEA, Congress sought to “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education [FAPE] 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 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).

12 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 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). 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 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).

13 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 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: xXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX. (A) In general. To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private

14 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 XXX 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. In turn, the Florida Department of Education has enacted rules to comply with the above-referenced mandates concerning XXX and providing a continuum of alternative placements. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-6.03028(3)(i) and 6A-6.0311(1).2/ 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,

15 and as close as possible to the child's home. 34 C.F.R. § 300.116(b). 23. With the XXX 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). “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 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, infra, the Eleventh Circuit adopted the Daniel two-part inquiry. In determining the first step, whether a school district can satisfactorily educate a student in the

16 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 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 achieve a satisfactory education for the student in a regular classroom. Greer, 950 F.2d at 697. 26. Here, the undisputed evidence establishes that the student xxxxxx be xxxxxxxxxxxxxx educated in the xxxxxxx classroom, with the use of supplemental aids and services. Moreover, there is no evidence that, subsequent to the ESE eligibility determination, the student's xxxxxxx sought to have the student educated in a xxxxxxx 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

17 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). 28. For most of xxx educational life, the student has received xxx education in a xxxxxxxxxxx environment. For years xxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx were xxxxxxxxxx, but in the last xxx years, those xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx have become xxxxxx to xxxxxx, and have subjected xxxxx and xxxxxxx to xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx. The staff has utilized all appropriate interventions and strategies, but the xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx continue. As discussed above in the Findings of Fact, due to the xxxxxx and xxxxxxxx of xxx disability, xxx did not, or could not receive an educational benefit from said interventions and strategies in a xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx placement. Additionally, xxx xxxxxxxxx posed a xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx and xxxxxx xxxx to xxxxxxx and others, and xxxxxxxxxx impacted xxx classmates' ability to learn and remain safe.

18 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 xxxxxxx xxx school 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. 30. The proposed change of the student's placement to the next point (in terms of xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) on the continuum of possible placements is a xxxxxxx school, and the School Board is agreeing to pay the xxxxxxx xxxxxxx. While it is undisputed that the proposed placement offers xxx potential for interaction with xxxxxxxxxxx peers, the totality of the record evidence demonstrated that the student's xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx warrant such a result. The School Board's proposed placement of the student in a xxxxxxx

19 xxxxxxx xxx school 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 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx class to an xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx school is approved. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2019, 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 4th day of January, 2019. ENDNOTES 1/ This is a scrivener’s error. The number should be 237. 2/ As previously noted in the Preliminary Statement, a Florida school district may not place a student in an xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx, without

20 parental consent. Where the parent does not consent to the placement, 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: Respondent (Address of Record) Xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx, Esquire Orange County Public Schools 445 West Amelia Street Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Xxxxxxx xxxxxx Jessup, Inc. 1642 North Volusia Avenue, Suite 201 Orange City, Florida 32763 (eServed) Xxxxxx xxxxxxx 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) Xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx Superintendent of Schools Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Orlando, Florida 32801-0271

21 xxxxxxx xxxxx, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) 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).