New Jersey Supreme Court finds School District Must Continue to Provide FAPE After Passing GED

The Supreme Court of New Jersey finds School District Must Continue to Provide FAPE After Students Pass the GED in

Board of Education of the Township of Sparta v. M.N. o/b/o A.D.

On August 7, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously decided a case that asked whether students who had passed the General Education Development test, commonly referred to as the “GED” continue to be entitled to receive a free and appropriate education from their local school district under IDEA.  In deciding that such students continue to be eligible to receive a FAPE, the Court engaged in regulatory interpretation of the federal implementing regulation 34 C.F.R. 300.102(a)(3).  Under this regulation, "a school district’s obligation to provide a free appropriate public education does not apply to ‘[c]hildren with disabilities who have graduated from high school with a regular high school diploma.’ [34 C.F.R. 300.102(a)(3)(i).]  Students with disabilities ‘who have graduated from high school but have not been awarded a regular high school diploma,’ however, remain eligible to receive a free appropriate public education."  34 C.F.R. 300.102(a)(3)(ii).

The Court held that a New Jersey State-issued diploma awarded based on passing the GED is not a “regular high school diploma” and therefore, students who pass the GED remain eligible for FAPE under the IDEA.  This holding relies on the regulation’s definition of “regular high school diploma” as “the standard high school diploma awarded to the preponderance of students in the State that is fully aligned with State standards”.  34 C.F.R. 300.102(a)(3)(iv).  The definition specifically excludes “a recognized equivalent of a diploma, such as a general equivalency diploma, certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or similar lesser credential.” 34 C.F.R. 300.102(a)(3)(iv).

Both M.N. and Disability Rights New Jersey (DRNJ), which was granted leave to appear as amicus curiae, argued that State-issued diplomas, like the one obtained by A.D. after passing the GED, were not the same as State-endorsed diplomas awarded upon the completion of high school graduation requirements.  They also argued that to find otherwise would permit district boards of education to push child with disabilities to take the GED exam instead of completing high school.

Sparta and the Commissioner of Education argued that the IDEA regulations contemplate an alternative high school diploma that aligns with a state’s academic standards such as the State-issued diploma received by A.D.  They emphasized that Congress did not intend for the IDEA to interfere with State control over the substantive content of the education imparted to their citizens including those standards which constitute graduation credentials which fully align with the State’s academic standards.  The Commissioner added the policy argument that excluding State-issued diplomas from the definition of regular high school diplomas, would frustrate the State’s “important policy goal of assigning the same value to State-issued high school diplomas as State-endorsed ones so that students who need to obtain diplomas via that alternative path have the same employment, educational, and life opportunities as those who are capable of attaining diplomas from a specific school district.”

The Court looked closely at the IDEA, its purpose and the relationship it creates between the federal and state governments.  The Court noted that IDEA was passed under Congress’ spending power which creates a contractual type of relationship with a state that accepts IDEA funds.  In return for IDEA funds, eligible students with disabilities acquire an enforceable substantive right to receive FAPE. 

The Court then reviewed both the federal regulations implementing the IDEA and the State statutes and regulations governing high school diplomas.  In interpreting these words, the Court reasoned that the State Legislature and the USDOE purposefully distinguished between State-issued and State-endorsed diplomas.  Further, 34 C.F.R. 300.102(a)(3)(iv) defines “regular high school diploma” singularly as “the standard high school diploma awarded to the preponderance of students in the State that is fully aligned with State standards”.  “Grammatically, both types of diplomas… cannot be ‘the standard high school diploma awarded to the preponderance of students in the State that is fully aligned with State standards.’  Only a State-endorsed diploma meets that requirement.”  The Court found this conclusion bolstered by the last sentence of the regulation which specifies that “[a] regular high school diploma does not include a recognized equivalent of a diploma, such as a general equivalency diploma, certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or similar lesser credential.”

The takeaway from this case is that students with disabilities remain eligible receive FAPE under the IDEA from their local school district after obtaining a State-issued diploma. A State-issued high school diploma is provided by the NJDOE to persons 16 years of age or older and no longer enrolled in school to document the attainment of academic skills and knowledge equivalent to a high school education.  Demonstration of the appropriate level of academic competency for receipt of the State-issued high school diploma includes passage of the GED of the American Council on Education.  A State-endorsed high school diploma, on the other hand, is awarded by district boards of education to students who meet State and local graduation requirements. Those requirements include credit and attendance requirements and a passing score on the English language arts and mathematics components of the State graduation proficiency.  In the alternative, through the IEP process district boards of education may specify alternate requirements for a State-endorsed diploma for individual students with disabilities. 

To be able to properly provide for students seeking to reenroll after receiving their State-issued diploma, it may be beneficial to create a policy that requires parents or adult students to provide notice of the intent to return to the District that would allow sufficient time to meet and create an IEP to best use the students’ limited time to best prepare them for their future.  Parents and students with disabilities who are disenrolling should be informed of such a policy to ensure a smooth transition back to the District if that circumstance were to arise.  Such a policy would not diminish students right to obtain a FAPE from a school district, but it would encourage notifying the school district and allowing more time to prepare appropriately.