Pinellas | Case 17-4555 | 2018-07-30

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS **, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 17-4555E PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 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), on xxxx CCC and XXX, XXXX, in Largo, Florida. APPEARANCES For Petitioner: XXXX XX. XXXXXXX, Esquire Windsor Law, LLC 2014 4th Street Sarasota, Florida 34237 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX, Esquire Montgomery Law, LLC Suite 420 1420 Locust Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 For Respondent: XXXXX XX. XXXXXXXX, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942

2 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Whether the School Board denied the student a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to locate and evaluate the student to determine the student’s eligibility for exceptional student education (ESE); whether the student was “thought to be eligible” for ESE at the time of discipline, and, if so, whether the School Board should have conducted a manifestation determination review; and lastly, whether Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the cost of private school tuition. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT A request for a due process hearing (Complaint) was filed on XXXXXXXX XX, XXXXXX. A Case Management Order was issued on XXXXXXX XX, XXXXX, establishing deadlines for a sufficiency review, as well as the mandatory resolution session. On XXXXXXXX XX, XXXXX, the School Board filed a Motion Objecting to an Expedited Hearing, arguing that the Complaint alleged a child find violation and thus was not entitled to an expedited hearing. On XXXXXX XX, XXXXX, an Order Granting Respondent’s Motion Objecting to Expedited Hearing was entered, removing the right to an expedited hearing. On XXXXXX XX, XXXXX, the School Board filed a Notice of Case Status, stating that following a Resolution Meeting on XXXXXXX XX, XXXXXX, the parties were

3 continuing to work towards a resolution to the parent’s concerns but had not yet reached one. An Amended Case Management Order was entered on XXXXX XXX, XXXX, extending the deadlines for a sufficiency review and the mandatory resolution session. On XXXXXX XX, XXXXX, Petitioner filed a Notice of Case Status, stating that following the resolution meeting, the parties had agreed to have the student evaluated by the school psychologist and to waive the deadlines set forth in the Amended Case Management Order. An Order Placing Case in Abeyance was entered on XXXXXXX XXX, XXXXX, following a telephone conference with both parties. The parties were required, by no later than XXXXXXXXX XX, XXXXX, to provide mutually agreeable dates for the scheduling of the due process hearing. Both parties filed status reports on XXXXXXX XX, XXXX, requesting a 30-day extension to complete the student evaluation. An Order continuing the abeyance was issued on XXXXXXX X, XXXX, extending the deadline to provide mutually agreeable dates for the final hearing until XXXXXX XX, XXXXX. On XXXXXXX XX, XXXXX, the School Board filed a Notice of Case Status, stating that while the evaluation process had begun, it was not yet complete. The School Board anticipated that the evaluation would be complete and an ESE eligibility meeting would be completed by XXXXXX XX, XXXXXX. On XXXXXX XX,

4 XXXX, an Order Continuing Case in Abeyance was entered, continuing the abeyance and extending the deadline for potential hearing dates until XXXXXXXX XX, XXXX. Both parties filed a status report on XXXXXX XX, XXXXX, indicating mutual agreement for a 30-day extension of time to complete an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) and a XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX evaluation. An Order Continuing Case in Abeyance was entered on XXXXXXXX XX, XXXXXX, granting the requested 30-day extension and requiring the parties to file a status report by CCCCX XX, ZZZ. On XXXXX XX, XXXXX, Petitioner filed an amended Notice of Case Status requesting an additional 30-day extension to complete the IEE due to errors in paperwork. The School Board filed a Notice of Case Status on the same day but requested a 60-day extension to conduct the IEE. On XXXXX XX, XXXX, following a telephone conference with the parties, a Notice of Hearing was entered scheduling the hearing for XXXXXX XXX through XX, XXXX. A Motion for Continuance was filed on XXXXX XX, XXXXX, requesting an extension to allow time for the School Board to fulfill Petitioner’s outstanding request for records. That same day, an Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing was entered, rescheduling the hearing for XX XX through XX, XXXX. On XXXX XX, XXXXX, an Order Allowing Testimony by Telephone was entered, allowing XX. XXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXXXX to

5 testify via telephone. On XXX XX, XXXXX, an Order Denying Motion in Limine, Granting Continuance, and Rescheduling Hearing was entered, as Petitioner required additional time to secure witnesses that were necessary for the presentation of the case. The due process hearing was rescheduled for XXX XX through XX, XXXX. Following a telephonic motion hearing on XXX XX, XXXX, regarding the School Board’s Motion in Limine/Motion to Quash on XXXX XX, XXXXX, an Order Denying Motion in Limine and Motion to Quash was entered on the same day. The due process hearing was held from XXX XX and XX, XXXXX. Petitioner presented the testimony of XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, Principal; XXXXX XXXXXXX, Assistant Principal; XXXXX XXXX, Counselor; XXXXX XXXXXXX, Reading Evaluator; XXXX XXXXX, Teacher; the student’s XXXXX; and XXXXXXX XXXXXXX, Psychologist. Petitioner Exhibits 4, 6, 7, 10 through 17, 21, 23, 24 (pp. 1 through 5, 8 through 10, 12, 24, and 27 through 31), 25, 26, 28 (pp. 7 through 17, 20 through 21, and 24 through 27), and 29 (pp. 1 and 27) were admitted into the record. The School Board presented the testimony of XXXXXX CCCC, Staff Attorney; ZZZXXXX XXXXXX, Teacher; XXXXXX XXXXXX, Psychological Services Manager; and XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, Assistant Principal. All of the School Board’s proposed exhibits were admitted into the record by stipulation. School Board Exhibits 12 and 27 were admitted as Joint Exhibits.

6 The Transcript of the due process hearing was filed on XXXXX XX, XXX. An Order of Specific Extension of Time for Final Order was entered on XXXX XX, XXXX, establishing the deadlines for the proposed final orders and the final order, which the parties had agreed to at the conclusion of the due process hearing. This Final Order was due no later than XXXX XX, 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 XXXX pronouns in this Final Order when referring to Petitioner. The XXXX pronouns are neither intended, nor should be interpreted, as a reference to Petitioner’s actual gender. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At the time of the due process hearing, the student was a XXX-year-old, finishing the XXX grade while attending a private XXXXXXX XXXX school. XX has always been a general education student, and has never been identified or found eligible for ESE. 2. Prior to attending a Pinellas County school, the student attended a Hillsborough County XXXXX school for XXXX grade. According to correspondence written by XXX XXXXX, XX repeated XXXXXX grade because that year, XXX XXXX XXXXX involved

7 the xxxXXXXXXXXX of XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, which included XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX. 3. After repeating XXXXX grade in Hillsborough County, XX completed the year with XXXXXX to XXXXX-XXXXXXXX grades in XXX XXXX classes. 4. For XXXXXXX grade, XXX attended a XXXXXXXX school in Pinellas County, again earning XXXXX-XXXXXXXXX to XXXXXXX grades in all courses. XXXX end-of-year course examinations revealed XXXX-XXXXXXXXX test scores. 5. The student’s XXXXXXX grade year was during the XXXXX- xxxxx school year; XX was enrolled at yet a XXXXX XXXXXX school, School A. On XXXXXXX XXX, XXXXXX, the student’s XXXXX sent the Assistant Principal an email regarding XXX XXXX application for admission to the XXXXX/XXXXXXXXXXXXX Program at School A, which is an XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX program. As a XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX program, students were selected based on their prior XXXXXXXX performance. The student’s XXXXXX wrote: [**] is a XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXX student whom would benefit greatly from a program such as this. As you’re aware, [**] was XXXXX XXXX in XX grade, however this was due to the distraction of a XXXXXXXXXXX involving XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX. I hope this won’t XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX on [XXX] and/or [XXX] eligibility [sic] into the program. 6. The student was accepted into the XXXXX program; therefore, XX was registered for XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX courses,

8 including three courses that, if completed, would result in XXXXXX school credit. At this juncture, and consistent with all other school years, the student’s XXXXXXXX made no mention of a suspected disability; in fact, XXX was advocating for XXX XXX to be challenged and admitted to a XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX program, with no mention of a need for evaluation or a need for any accommodations. The student had progressed from year to year with XXXXXXXX than XXXXXXX grades and XXXXXX than XXXXXXXX standardized test scores up until this point. 7. In January of XXXX, the student’s XXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXX teacher contacted XXX XXXXXX to let XXXX know that the student was XXXXXXX the class due to missing assignments, but that if XX turned in the missing assignments, XX could raise XXX grade. At this point, the student’s XXXXXXX did not indicate that the student needed any type of assistance, or that XX needed to be evaluated. Instead, XX expressed XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, given that the student, in XXX opinion, had XXXXXXX and was focused on XXXX-XXXXX XXXXX. The parent never indicated that the student needed assistance of any type to complete the work, nor did XXX request an evaluation at this point. 8. Also in XXXXXXX of XXXXXX, the student was placed on xxxxxxxxxx for the XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX, which was not unusual for students in the XXXXXXX program. Most of the students are able to make up the work and remain in the XXXXXXXXXX program. Given

9 that the focus of the program is mastery of the subjects, many students are afforded extra time to complete assignments. To be clear, XXXXXXXXXX from the XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX program would only result in the student being placed in XXXXXXX education classes, not XXXXXXX classes. The teachers testified that the student had been XXXXXX from school due mostly to XXXXXX; therefore, they provided XXX with extra time to submit missing assignments. 9. The student’s XXXXXX XX XXXXXXX teacher credibly testified that XXX was never aware of the student having any XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX; when the students XXXX XXXXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX, XXX was on topic--and XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX was good. 10. On XXXXXXX XX, XXXX, the student was involved in a XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX while at school, during the school day. XX and a XXXXXXX student had previously agreed to XXXXXXX class and XXXX on school grounds during the school day. Once they did XXXX, the students XXXXXXX and the student XXXXX the XXXXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX with XXXX XXXXX. When later questioned about the incident, the student was XXXXXX and XXXXXXX to these actions. A few days after the XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, the XXXX reported that XXX had not XXXXXXXXX to the XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, and she had clearly told XXX to XXXX. 11. Based on the report of the XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX, which occurred on school grounds during the school

10 day, the student was found to be in XXXXXXXX of the ZZZZXX of XXXXXXX XXXXXXX, and was immediately XXXXXXX to complete the school year at an XXXXXXXXX school designed for students who have XXXXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. The student had never before been XXXXXXXXXXX or been the subject of XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX. 12. The guidance counselor credibly testified that the student had never before XXXXXXXXXX, and that the issues that had arisen between the student, the XXXX, and the XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX were typical XXXXXX school problems. XXX was, therefore, XXXXXXXXXX at the XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX that had occurred on school grounds, given that the student had been a XXXXXX student with no prior XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. 13. The student’s parent received a XXXXXX of XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX, which included language giving the parent the right to request an evaluation for ESE if the parent thought it was appropriate. No such request was made. The parent was also notified that XXX could appeal the decision, but no appeal was pursued. 14. Sometime after this XXXXXXXXXX was final, and before the end of the school year, the XXXX recanted. XXX XXXXXXXXX that the entire XXXXXX XXXXXXXX was indeed XXXXXXXXX; and yet, despite the fact that the XXXX had XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX in what has been characterized as a XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX of the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

11 XXXXXXXXXX (the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX) and XXX had also XXXXX to the school staff and the resource officer during the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (while the student at issue in this case was XXXXX)--the XXXXX was XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX. XXX was XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX to the XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX, as the student had been. At the due process hearing, the Principal of School A was unable to explain why there was such XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX of the students, based solely on gender. 15. In XXXXXXXXXXXX, an attorney specialized in education law represented the family and sought to have the student’s educational records of the XXXXXXXXXXXXX incident amended to XXXXXXXXXX any mention of a XXXXXX XXXXXXXX or XXXXXXX, as had first been XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX by the XXXX. The records were amended as requested. No request was made by counsel or by the student’s parent for a review of the XXXXXXXXXXX, or for a manifestation determination review, or for an evaluation of a suspected disability. 16. The student’s XXXXXXXXXXXXX expired at the end of XXX XXXXXXXX grade year, but XX did not return to a Pinellas County school. XX also never attended the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX school. Instead, for XXX entire XXXXX grade year and the end of XXXX XXXXXXXX grade year, XX was enrolled in XXXXXXX school. XX

12 XXXXXXXX all XXX classes, advancing from XXXXXXX grade to XXXXX, and then to XX grade. 17. In XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, the student was evaluated by a psychologist, XX. ZZZZZZZ. It stands to reason that a XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX of XXXXXX XXXXXXX, who XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX which resulted in XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX, would XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX as a result of the XXXXXXX. XX. XXXXXXXXX opined that the student did not suffer from any XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX. XXX noted that XXX achievement at the time of XXX evaluation and XXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX were more likely to be related to XXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXX issues, and XXX recommended that XX promptly be returned to a XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX program. 18. In XXXXXXXXXX of XXXX, the student was evaluated by a speech and language pathologist, XXX. XXXXX. At this point, the student was choosing to attend XXXXXXXX XXXX school, rather than attend a XXXXXX and XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. XX. XXXXXXX found the student to have some XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX, but also found that XX had developed some compensatory strategies, and that XX disliked XXXXXX. This finding is consistent with the credible testimony provided by the School A teachers, which is that they saw no reason to suspect that the student was XXXXXXXXXXXXX in any manner, or that XX needed any assistance.

13 19. For XXX XXXX grade year, the school year of XXXX-XXXX, XX enrolled at a XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX school. XX did XXXX academically, and the staff at the school reported that XX did not receive any accommodation different from that provided to all of XXXX peers. 20. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that as of XXXXXXXXXXXXX, when the Complaint was filed, the School Board had no reason to suspect that the student had a disability, or that XX needed to be evaluated for ESE eligibility.1/ Not one single individual, teacher, parent or school official proposed or suggested that the student may be in need of special education until well after the XXXXXXX which resulted in XXXXXXXXX. The student’s academic performance was XXXXXXX at times, and most often XXXX XXXXXXX--there was simply no reason for anyone to suspect a need for ESE. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 21. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of the parties thereto pursuant to sections 1003.57(1)(b) and 1003.5715(5), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03311(9)(u). 22. 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).

14 23. In enacting the IDEA, Congress sought to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a 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). 24. The IDEA contains an affirmative obligation for every local public school system to identify students who might be disabled and evaluate those students to determine whether they are indeed eligible. L.C. V. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52059 at *12 (N.D. Ala. 2016)(quoting N.G. v. D.C., 556 F. Supp. 2d 11, 16 (D.D.C. 2008))(citing 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A)). This obligation is referred to as “Child Find,” and a local school system's failure to locate and

15 evaluate a potentially disabled child constitutes a denial of FAPE. Id. Thus, each state must put policies and procedures in place to ensure that all children with disabilities residing in the state, regardless of the severity of their disability, and who need special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated. 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(a). 25. Here, the student advanced from grade to grade, always in a XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX setting, with XXXXXXX to mostly XXXX- XXXXXXX grades, and was ultimately admitted to a XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX program for XXXX last school year while attending a Pinellas County public school. At no point leading up to the XXXXXXXX, which led to XXX XXXXXXXXXX, was there reason to suspect that XXX had a disability; at no time did a parent, teacher, school official or professional evaluator spot any evidence of a disability, or of the student’s need for any assistance. Absent from the record is any evidence that the XXXXX or anyone on behalf of the student, including an attorney specialized in education law, requested an evaluation for ESE eligibility until well after the XXXXXXXXXX of the XXXX of XXXXXXX XXXXX. 26. Between the time of the XXXXXXXX (XXXXXXXXXX) and the filing of the request for a due process hearing, the only suggestion of a potential need for special education services was the evaluation conducted by XX. XXXXXXX, which was conducted

16 during the time that the student was attending XXXXXXXX XXX school. XX findings were not inconsistent with the School A teacher observations; that is, even though the student might test XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX in some XXXXXXXX skills, XX adequately XXXXXXXXXXX for them in such a manner that XXX presented to school staff as being capable of handling the XXXXXXXXXX curriculum XX chose to participate in. 27. XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX, which the student would have been entitled to if XX had ever been found eligible for ESE, can also be asserted by this student if the School Board is deemed to have had knowledge of the student’s disability before the XXXXXXXX that precipitated the XXXXXXXX. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03312(10) sets forth the requirements that apply to regular education students who have XXXXXXX in XXXXXXXXX that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX: (10) Protections for Students not Determined Eligible for Special Education and Related Services. A regular education student who has engaged in behavior that violated a code of student conduct may assert any of the protections afforded to a student with a disability under this rule if the school district had knowledge of the student’s disability before the behavior that precipitated the disciplinary action occurred. (a) Basis of knowledge. A school district is deemed to have knowledge that a student is a student with a disability if:

17 1. The parent has expressed concern in writing to supervisory or administrative personnel of the appropriate school district, or a teacher of the student, that the student needs special education and related services; 2. The parent has requested an evaluation to determine whether the student is in need of special education and related services; or 3. The teacher of the student, or other school district personnel, expressed specific concerns about a pattern of behavior demonstrated by the student directly to the school district’s special education director or to other supervisory school district personnel. 28. Here, the date of the XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX on school grounds was XXXXX XX, XXXXXX. Prior to that date, there is no record evidence of the parent expressing concern in writing to supervisory or administrative school personnel, or to a teacher of the student, indicating that the student needed special education and related services. There is also no evidence that the parent requested an evaluation to determine whether the student was in need of special education and related services. 29. Lastly, the only evidence of staff members expressing specific concerns about a pattern of behavior prior to XXXXX XX, XXXX, was the fact that the student had XXXXX to turn in some assignments, due mostly to XXXXXX XXXXXXXX, and that XX needed to turn in the assignments to raise XXX grades and remain in the XXXXXXX XXXXX program. The teachers were never concerned that

18 the student had a disability; the only concern was that XX, like many of XXX peers in the XXXXXXXX program, needed more time to master the material and turn in assignments. The student had been XXXXXXXX for many days due mostly to XXXXX, and since the XXXXXXXX were XXXXXXX, the student was given more time to complete the work. Even if the student had been removed from the XXXXXXXXXXX program, it would not have signaled a need for special education; it would have only resulted in the student being placed in XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX classes. 30. The student in this case, therefore, may not assert any of the XXXXXXXXXX protections afforded to students with disabilities because the School Board is not deemed to have knowledge of the student potentially having a disability before XXXXXXX, XXXX. 31. Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law thus far, Petitioner’s request for a manifestation review is dismissed, and all other requests for relief, including the request for private school tuition reimbursement, are also dismissed. ORDER Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that Petitioner's Complaint is DENIED in all respects.

19 DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2018. ENDNOTE 1/ Evaluations conducted after the Complaint was filed, which occurred in XXXXXXXX of XXXX, were found to be of limited probative value, given that the evaluations could only inform the undersigned as to what knowledge the School Board could be deemed to have had prior to the filing of the Complaint. The Complaint was never amended, nor has Petitioner filed a new complaint, challenging the eligibility team determination made in XXXX. COPIES FURNISHED: XXXXXXXX XX. XXXXXXXXXX, Esquire Pin ellas County School Board 301 4th Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 (eServed) XXXXXXXX XX. XXXXXXXX, ZXX, Superintenden Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street Southwest t Largo, Florida 33770

20 XXXXXXX XX. XXXXXXX, Esquire Windsor Law, LLC 2014 4th Street Sarasota, Florida 34237 (eServed) XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX, Esquire Montgomery Law, LLC Suite 420 1420 Locust Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 (eServed) 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).