District Wins: Parent's Challenge to New Behavioral Support Provider Denied

An Exeter parent challenged the school district's decision to switch their autistic son's behavioral support services from a private agency (ACES) to a district-run program. The parent argued the switch was predetermined, the transition plan was inadequate, and the new providers were unqualified. The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor, finding the IEP offer was appropriate, the parent meaningfully participated in the process, and the proposed providers were qualified.

What Happened

Student is an 11-year-old boy with autism who had been receiving special education services from the Exeter Union School District since 2002. Because of significant behavioral challenges, Student required a Behavioral Support Program (BSP) both at school and at home. Since approximately 2006, those services had been provided by a private agency called ACES. By 2008, the District had grown concerned that ACES was not meeting its contractual obligations — failing to provide the agreed-upon hours of service, failing to follow its own training protocols, and not providing consistent supervision. The District decided not to renew its contract with ACES and instead proposed a new behavioral support program run collaboratively by a district school psychologist (Katherine Wu) and a County-employed board-certified behavior analyst (Ron Pekarek).

At Student's October 7, 2008 IEP meeting — which had been reconvened multiple times and resulted in a 60-page IEP with approximately 50 goals — the District formally offered the new program. Parent refused the offer and insisted that ACES continue providing services. Despite the lapsed contract, the District continued paying for ACES services throughout the dispute so that Student's services were never interrupted. Parent filed for due process, arguing that the District's offer was predetermined without meaningful parental input, that the transition plan from ACES to the new program was inadequate, and that the new providers lacked the qualifications to serve Student appropriately.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the District's favor on every issue. On the predetermination claim, the ALJ found that Parent and her attorney actively participated in the October 7, 2008 IEP meeting. As one key example, when Parent pushed back on the District's proposed data collection approach, the District actually changed its plan and agreed to keep ACES's more detailed data collection procedures in place. When Parent asked to meet Katherine Wu in person, the District called her into the meeting on the spot. These facts showed the District had an open mind and genuinely considered Parent's input — the legal standard for meaningful parental participation.

On the transition plan, the ALJ found it was thorough and appropriate. The plan included a detailed first-day "information transfer" session of nearly six hours between ACES and Ms. Wu, followed by four weeks of overlapping observation and consultation, and a joint "clinic meeting" before any final handoff occurred. Notably, the 30-day transition period was consistent with what ACES itself had recommended at the IEP meeting.

On the qualification of the new providers, the ALJ found both Ron Pekarek (a board-certified behavior analyst with 10 years of autism experience and a strong training record) and Katherine Wu (a credentialed school psychologist nearly finished with her BCBA certification, supervised directly by Pekarek) were qualified to serve Student. The ALJ noted that Parent could not recall the credentials of the ACES supervisors she preferred, making her comparison of the two programs unreliable. The ALJ also pointed out that ACES itself had assigned a non-BCBA supervisor to Student after the primary supervisor went on maternity leave — the very kind of credential gap Parent was claiming to be concerned about.

What Was Ordered

The District's October 7, 2008 IEP offer was declared to constitute a free and appropriate public education (FAPE).
Student's requests for relief — including an order requiring the District to continue using ACES — were denied.
The District prevailed on every issue presented at hearing.

Why This Matters for Parents

Knowing your current provider's credentials matters. The ALJ gave little weight to Parent's argument that the new providers were underqualified because Parent could not recall the qualifications of the ACES staff she preferred. If you are going to argue that a proposed provider is less qualified than your current one, be prepared to compare credentials specifically and in detail.
Active participation at an IEP meeting can actually help the district's case. When Parent asked questions, pushed back on data collection, and requested to meet the new provider in person — and the District responded by making changes — the ALJ used all of that as evidence that the IEP was not predetermined. Participation is your right, but document what the district refuses to change, not just what they agree to.
A district can change service providers without your consent, as long as the services offered remain appropriate. Under the law, districts are not required to use the specific provider a parent prefers — only to offer services that are reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit. Continuity with a familiar provider is a legitimate concern, but it is not a legal right on its own.
A well-documented transition plan is a key part of any provider change. The District won in part because its transition plan was detailed, collaborative, and consistent with what the outgoing provider itself recommended. If your district is switching providers, ask for specifics: Who will transfer information? How many hours? What happens before the new provider takes over independently?

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The District's October 7, 2008 IEP offer was declared to constitute a free and appropriate public education (FAPE).
Student's requests for relief — including an order requiring the District to continue using ACES — were denied.
The District prevailed on every issue presented at hearing.

Why This Matters for Parents

Knowing your current provider's credentials matters. The ALJ gave little weight to Parent's argument that the new providers were underqualified because Parent could not recall the qualifications of the ACES staff she preferred. If you are going to argue that a proposed provider is less qualified than your current one, be prepared to compare credentials specifically and in detail.
Active participation at an IEP meeting can actually help the district's case. When Parent asked questions, pushed back on data collection, and requested to meet the new provider in person — and the District responded by making changes — the ALJ used all of that as evidence that the IEP was not predetermined. Participation is your right, but document what the district refuses to change, not just what they agree to.
A district can change service providers without your consent, as long as the services offered remain appropriate. Under the law, districts are not required to use the specific provider a parent prefers — only to offer services that are reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit. Continuity with a familiar provider is a legitimate concern, but it is not a legal right on its own.
A well-documented transition plan is a key part of any provider change. The District won in part because its transition plan was detailed, collaborative, and consistent with what the outgoing provider itself recommended. If your district is switching providers, ask for specifics: Who will transfer information? How many hours? What happens before the new provider takes over independently?