FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4144

_____________________________

MID FLORIDA COMMUNITY 

SERVICES, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Department of Children and 

Families.

October 30, 2019

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final order of the Department of 

Children and Families (“DCF”) concluding that Mid Florida

Community Services, Inc. (“Mid Florida”) is required to obtain a 

child care license for each of its five Head Start ESE Blended 

Classrooms operated pursuant to a cooperative agreement with 

the Volusia County School District (“VCS”). Because the blended 

classroom sites were entitled to an exemption from licensure under 

sections 402.302(2) and 402.3025(1), Florida Statutes (2017), we 

reverse.
2

I.

Mid Florida is a private, not-for-profit Florida corporation 

operating a variety of social service and early education programs, 

including twenty “Head Start” programs in Hernando, Sumter, 

and Volusia counties. 

In 2010, VCS entered into a cooperative agreement with Mid 

Florida to create Head Start “blended classrooms.” The blended 

classrooms were created to help VCS meet state standards for 

serving pre-kindergarten aged students with disabilities in its 

district. VCS served those students by placing them in “blended” 

environments with typically developing peers. The Head Start 

ESE Blended Classrooms consist of eight ESE students enrolled as 

VCS students and ten non-ESE typically developing peers that are 

not VCS students but are eligible to enroll in a Head Start 

program. 

The cooperative agreement states in part: 

The joint programs authorized by this Agreement 

constitute integral programs of the School Board of 

Volusia County for purposes of section 402.302(2), 

Florida Statutes for the following reasons: 

a. District teachers and paraprofessionals work 

directly in this joint program with students enrolled in 

the District. Head Start staff participating in the 

program are funded by [Mid Florida]. 

b. This joint program operates only on school 

campuses owned, operated and exclusively paid for by the 

District; 

c. This joint program takes place on school campuses 

which are exclusively administered and managed by 

school administrators of the District; 

d. This joint program is among the program options 

offered by the District to its students; and 
3

e. The District has exclusive control over the 

curriculum offered to students in this joint program.

In 2017, in response to an inquiry from Mid Florida to DCF 

regarding the need for licensure of one of its relocated Head Start 

classrooms,1 DCF issued a “Determination Letter” concluding that 

eighteen of Mid Florida’s Head Start classrooms, located in three 

different counties, were subject to licensure as child care facilities. 

All but five of the eighteen sites identified were already validly 

licensed.2 The five sites that were not licensed are the five VCS 

Head Start ESE blended classrooms at issue in this case. 

Mid Florida contested DCF’s determination regarding the five 

Head Start ESE blended classrooms through a formal 

administrative hearing. The testimony at the hearing established 

that the blended classrooms were created to serve the needs of prekindergarten students in the district. VCS determines whether a 

Head Start blended classroom is needed at a particular school by 

assessing how many children in the area would benefit from those 

services. The decision whether to have a blended classroom

program is made annually. The blended classrooms are in VCS 

schools and use VCS’s calendar. VCS has “exclusive control” over 

the curriculum offered in the blended classrooms. Each classroom 

has one VCS teacher and one VCS teaching assistant, and one Mid 

Florida teacher and one Mid Florida assistant. The teachers work 

cooperatively to teach all the children and there is no segregation 

of ESE and non-ESE students in the classroom. The principal of

the school where the classroom is located has final say concerning

discipline of all students in the classroom. The classrooms also 

follow VCS guidelines on visitors. It is the Head Start (Mid 

Florida) teacher’s responsibility to cover any additional education 

requirements that go above what VCS is required to provide. All 

Mid Florida employees working in the blended classrooms are

 1 The inquiry concerned a Head Start classroom that was not 

a blended classroom and was not a part of the cooperative 

agreement with VCS. 

2 In the licensed Head Start programs run by Mid Florida 

there were no public-school teachers in the classroom. Those 

programs were run entirely by Mid Florida.
4

required to be vetted and screened by VCS. The blended 

classrooms are subject to Department of Education standards and 

required performance and learning outcomes. VCS is responsible 

for the cost of feeding the eight ESE students while Mid Florida is

responsible for the cost of feeding the ten non-ESE students in 

compliance with Head Start requirements. VCS provides funding 

for the ESE children enrolled in the blended classrooms, and Mid 

Florida provides the funding for the Mid Florida teacher and 

teacher’s assistant.

The administrative law judge’s recommended order concluded 

that the five blended classrooms sites are “integral programs” of 

VCS and are “directly operated and staffed” by VCS. As such, the 

judge held that the blended classroom sites are entitled to an 

exemption from licensure as childcare facilities under section 

402.302(2). 

The agency’s final order granted most of DCF’s exceptions to 

the recommended order and ultimately concluded that the blended 

classroom sites must be licensed as childcare facilities. The final 

order rejected the administrative law judge’s determination that 

the blended classrooms are integral programs of VCS, concluding 

that the programs are not “operated and staffed directly” by VCS. 

The order reasoned that Mid Florida provides a teacher and 

paraprofessional who have primary supervision and “program 

responsibility” for the Head-Start-only students. Further, 

reasoned DCF, the Head-Start-only students rely on Mid Florida 

for food, transportation, and to ensure that their educational needs 

are met. Finally, DCF noted that VCS does not take attendance of 

the Head-Start-only students. This appeal followed.

II.

Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, requires DCF to license 

childcare facilities. A childcare facility is defined as “any child care 

center or child care arrangement which provides child care for 

more than five children unrelated to the operator and which 

receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving 

care, wherever operated, and whether or not operated for profit.” § 

402.302(2), Fla. Stat. Section 402.302(2)(a) excludes from that 
5

definition: “Public schools . . . and their integral programs, except 

as provided in s. 402.3025.” 

Section 402.3025 provides exemptions from licensure as a 

child care facility. In relevant part, the statute provides as follows:

(1) Public Schools.—

(a) The following programs for children shall not be 

deemed to be child care and shall not be subject to the 

provisions of ss. 402.301-402.319:

. . . 

2. Programs for children who are at least 3 years of age, 

but who are under 5 years of age, provided the 

programs are operated and staffed directly by the 

schools and provided the programs meet ageappropriate standards as adopted by the State Board of 

Education.

(emphasis added).

Mid Florida argues, in part, that DCF’s interpretation of the 

phrase “operated and staffed directly by the schools” as used in 

section 402.3025(1)(a)2. erroneously limited the exemption to 

programs operated and staffed exclusively by the schools. We 

agree. The fact that Mid Florida may supervise and have some 

level of responsibility for the non-ESE, non-VCS students does not 

mean that the blended programs are not operated and staffed 

directly by VCS. DCF recognized, and the undisputed evidence 

shows, that “Mid Florida uses the VCS curriculum, has a VCS 

teacher and paraprofessional assigned to the classrooms, [and] 

follows VCS instructional discussion, and the health services 

policies.” VCS is responsible for ensuring that state educational 

standards are met and has final authority over the operations, 

policies, and practices implemented in these classes. In fact, the 

blended programs would not even exist unless VCS determined 

there was a need for them to serve VCS’s pre-kindergarten

children with learning disabilities. 
6

For these reasons, the blended classes are also integral to VCS

as recognized in the VCS cooperative agreement with Mid Florida. 

As the administrative law judge found, based on competent 

substantial evidence in the record, the purpose of the partnership 

between Mid Florida and VCS is “to provide services to VCS. . . 

necessary for VCS pre-K children with disabilities to achieve 

academic success and high quality of life,” and to ensure 

compliance with the Head Start program. Mid Florida correctly 

asserts that but for the desire of VCS to provide Head Start ESE 

Blended Classrooms as part of its continuum of services to 

students with disabilities, Mid Florida would not be a part of these 

classrooms.

We therefore conclude that DCF erred in denying Mid Florida 

exemption from the child care facility licensing requirements for 

the five Head Start ESE Blended Classrooms subject to the VCS 

cooperative agreement. 

REVERSED and REMANDED. 

RAY, C.J., BILBREY, J.,3 and SHARRIT, MICHAEL S., ASSOCIATE

JUDGE, concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Jennifer C. Rey of The Hogan Law Firm, Brooksville, for 

Appellant.

Jane Almy-Loewinger, Assistant General Counsel, Department of 

Children and Families, Daytona, and Stefanie Camfield, Assistant 

 3 Judge Bilbrey was substituted for an original panel member 

in this proceeding after oral argument. He has viewed the digital 

recording of oral argument.
7

General Counsel, Department of Children and Families, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.