Graduation Season Brings More Than Diplomas: New Jersey Supreme Court Decision Clarifies IDEA Eligibility in Sparta v. M.N. Decision

As caps fly and families celebrate graduation milestones across New Jersey, a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision reminds school districts that not all diplomas carry the same legal weight, especially when it comes to special education rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). In Board of Education of the Township of Sparta v. M.N., the Court addressed a question that strikes at the heart of special education practice: Does a student with a disability forfeit their right to a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) by receiving a state-issued diploma upon passing the General Education Development test (“GED”)?

According to the New Jersey Supreme Court, a State-issued GED diploma is not a “regular high school diploma” as set forth in the IDEA, and therefore does not terminate a student’s right to a FAPE.

Case Summary:

This case involved A.D., a student with disabilities, who had been struggling academically. After a period of home instruction, A.D.’s parents withdrew him from Sparta High School. In April 2019, A.D. passed the GED and received a state-issued diploma. A.D. was later re-enrolled in Sparta High and resumed home instruction until 2021, when the district refused further enrollment, asserting that the GED-based diploma rendered him ineligible under the IDEA. A.D.’s parent challenged the decision, arguing the state-issued diploma was not equivalent to a “regular high school diploma” under federal law.

Supreme Court Ruling:

In 2024, the Court agreed with A.D.’s parent and held that A.D. was entitled to further education under the IDEA. The opinion emphasized a crucial distinction: A GED is not a “regular high school diploma” under the IDEA. The Court pointed to federal regulation, specifically 34 C.F.R. § 300.10, which makes clear that a diploma must be fully aligned with the state’s academic standards to terminate a student’s IDEA eligibility. The GED, while a recognized credential, does not satisfy this requirement. The GED-based diploma was not aligned with the State’s academic content standards and therefore did not terminate A.D.'s entitlement to a FAPE under the IDEA

Accordingly, the Court held that A.D. had not yet “graduated” in the way IDEA contemplates. Determining that his educational journey and rights under federal law were still ongoing, the Court reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating an earlier ruling in favor of A.D. and his mother. The Court made clear that a diploma based on a GED test did not terminate IDEA protections.

Implications for School Districts:

This decision has several key implications for New Jersey school districts:

1. Eligibility for FAPE: Students with disabilities who receive a state-issued diploma based on the GED remain entitled to a FAPE until they obtain a regular high school diploma that aligns with state standards.
2. Policy Review: Districts should review and update policies regarding graduation requirements and the provision of special education services to ensure compliance with this decision.
3. Individualized Consideration: Each student's situation should be assessed individually to determine eligibility for continued special education services.

Although this decision clarifies that earning a GED does not constitute graduation for purposes of ending eligibility for special education and related services, it does raise additional questions that district’s must grapple with, including:

1. Disenrolled Students: Students with disabilities who voluntarily withdraw or disenroll before earning a state-endorsed diploma may re-enroll in school and seek special education services at any time up to and including the school year in which they turn 21. If they remain eligible under IDEA and New Jersey law, districts must provide appropriate services, often treating these students as transfers and developing a new IEP.
2. Declassified Students: Students who were previously eligible but were declassified—and who did not graduate with a state-endorsed diploma—may return and request a new evaluation for special education eligibility before the end of the school year in which they turn 21. While eligibility is not guaranteed, this decision suggests these requests must be taken seriously.

Ultimately, the Court’s decision in Board of Education of the Township of Sparta v. M.N. reinforces that the path to graduation for students with disabilities is not solely defined by the receipt of a diploma, but by whether that diploma meets the IDEA’s requirements. As districts navigate the close of the school year, they must remain vigilant in distinguishing between various types of credentials and the legal consequences tied to each. This decision also compels districts to carefully assess the status of disenrolled and declassified students, recognizing that many may still be entitled to special education services. Ultimately, ensuring compliance will require not only clear policies but also a commitment to individualized evaluation and legal guidance when uncertainty arises.