Special Education Services Through Age 22 in New York: October 2025 Update

If your child has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and is approaching age 21, you may have questions about whether they can continue receiving special education services. This is a question we have been receiving a lot lately, and understandably so; the answer has significant implications for families planning their child’s educational future.

This is a rapidly evolving area of New York education law, and we want to share the most current information available to help families navigate this important issue.

Understanding the Age Eligibility Question

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the federal law that governs special education services. IDEA requires states to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to eligible children with disabilities “between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive.” However, IDEA eligibility ends when a student earns a regular high school diploma (though it does not end if the student receives a certificate or other non-diploma credential).

In New York, this federal requirement is codified in Education Law § 4402(5), which provides that a student with a disability who reaches age 21 during the school year is entitled to continue receiving services until the end of that school year (or the end of the summer program if they turn 21 during July or August).

However, a key legal dispute has emerged: does “ages 3 and 21, inclusive” mean services end on a student’s 21st birthday, at the end of the school year when they turn 21, or actually continue through their entire 21st year of life (meaning until the day before their 22nd birthday)?

This question has been at the center of recent court decisions and State Education Department guidance.

The Current Legal Landscape

On July 17, 2025, the New York Appellate Division, Third Department, issued a significant decision in Matter of Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School District v. New York State Education Department. The court upheld the State Education Department’s (SED) interpretation that students with disabilities are entitled to receive special education services until the day before their 22nd birthday, provided they have not yet earned a high school diploma.

This decision reinforced SED’s Formal Opinion of Counsel No. 242, issued on July 6, 2023, which determined that New York law must be read consistently with federal standards established by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in A.R. v. Connecticut State Board of Education.

October 10, 2025 Memorandum

Most recently, on October 10, 2025, the New York State Education Department issued a new memorandum that significantly strengthens the Department’s position. This memorandum:

  • Reaffirms that school districts must provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to eligible students until they earn a high school diploma or until the day before their 22nd birthday;
  • Emphasizes that the Third Department’s July 2025 decision upheld SED’s interpretation “in its entirety”;
  • States explicitly that districts may no longer ignore this obligation;
  • Warns that noncompliance will be considered willful under Education Law §306; and
  • Requires districts to maintain enrollment and services, including placements at State-approved schools.

The October memorandum makes clear that this is no longer an open question. School districts are expected to comply immediately.

What Does This Mean for New York Families?

The State Education Department has taken the position that all school districts in New York must provide services through age 22. Following the Third Department’s July 2025 decision upholding this interpretation and the strongly-worded October 2025 memorandum, SED has made clear it expects districts to comply immediately.

However, it’s important to understand the current legal landscape:

  • The Katonah decision is binding only in the Third Department (covering upstate counties) and could potentially be appealed to the New York Court of Appeals;
  • The State Legislature has not yet amended the Education Law to codify this requirement; and
  • SED is interpreting existing federal and state law to reach this conclusion, backed by the Third Department’s decision.

Despite these ongoing legal questions, the October memorandum warns that noncompliance will be considered “willful” and subject to enforcement. This creates a situation where districts face pressure to comply with SED’s interpretation, even as the legal framework continues to develop.

Given this uncertainty and the strong enforcement language in the recent memorandum, families should take proactive steps to ensure their child’s rights are protected.

Practical Steps for Families

  1. Review Your District’s Policies

    • Check your school district’s Special Education Procedures Manual or Standard Operating Procedures Manual. Some districts, including New York City, have already updated their policies to explicitly provide services through age 22.
  2. Contact Your Special Education Administrator

    • Even if your district has updated policies, reach out to your district’s special education administrator or Committee on Special Education (CSE) directly to confirm that your child will continue to receive services through age 22, ensure there is no confusion about the current legal requirements, and document the district’s position in writing.
  3. Share the State Education Department Documents

    • Provide your district with copies of the SED Formal Opinion of Counsel No. 242 (July 6, 2023), and the updated memorandum from SED Counsel Daniel Morton-Bentley (October 10, 2025). These documents reflect the Department’s official position and carry significant weight in discussions with your school district.
  4. Plan for Transition Services

    • The SED recommends that districts consider providing services through the end of the school year in which the student turns 22, rather than stopping on the student’s actual birthday. This should be part of a larger discussion about your child’s transition from school to post-school activities.
    • Work with your CSE to ensure appropriate transition planning is in place, regardless of when services will end.

Why Is This Issue Still Evolving?

The New York State Legislature has not yet amended the Education Law to provide state aid to districts for educating students with disabilities through age 22.

Additionally, the Katonah case could potentially be appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which could provide further clarity on this issue statewide.

The Bottom Line

As of October 2025, the law is clear. New York school districts must provide special education services to students with disabilities until the day before their 22nd birthday, provided they have not earned a high school diploma. The State Education Department has made enforcement a priority and has warned districts that noncompliance will be considered willful.

Because this is a dynamic and changing area of law, it is essential to stay informed and take proactive steps to protect your child’s rights.

Need Help?

If you have questions about your child’s eligibility for special education services through age 22, or if your school district is not complying with the State Education Department’s directives, our firm is here to help.

Contact us today to discuss your situation and learn about your legal options.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided is current as of October 21, 2025, but special education law continues to evolve. For advice specific to your situation, please consult with a qualified special education attorney.

The Department of Education’s Layoffs Threaten IDEA Enforcement

I wrote a post for ADDitude Magazine’s website, a leading resource for families and adults with ADHD and related conditions, about the recent layoffs at the U.S. Department of Education.

While those cuts have been blocked for now, staying engaged has never been more crucial. The stakes for IDEA enforcement and students with disabilities couldn’t be higher.

Read the post by clicking HERE.

Court Upholds New York’s Restrictive Special Education Rule: What Parents Need to Know for 2025-2026

July 17, 2025 – A recent court ruling has implications for families of children with disabilities in New York City, just as the new school year approaches. Here’s what parents need to know about the Enhanced Rate Equitable Services (ERES) process, and whether appeals are expected.

The Decision: A New Change in Special Education Due Process

On July 11, 2025, New York Supreme Court Justice Amy E. Joyce issued a ruling in Agudath Israel of America v. New York State Board of Regents, rejecting a challenge to a 2024 emergency regulation that had barred families from using due process hearings to challenge provider service rates under IESPs (Individualized Education Services Programs).

While the emergency regulation had already expired in October 2024, the court’s ruling validated the NYC Department of Education’s shift away from the impartial hearing process and toward a newly created administrative route: the ERES Unit.

Continue reading

The Future of Special Ed in NY: NYSED Weighs in on the Changing Role of the U.S. Dept. of Education

Last week, representatives from the New York State Education Department addressed some concerns about the future of special education funding in New York. This webinar comes at an uncertain time, as President Trump has signed an executive order to close the U.S. Department of Education and threatens to cut funding to public schools that support diversity initiatives.

The webinar was hosted by the New York State Special Education Task Force. I have linked the video here and shared my notes below.

Continue reading

Cerra v. Pawling Central School District: How IDEA Shapes IEP Requirements

Introduction

This post is a part of our ongoing blog series exploring significant Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) cases. Today, we’ll look into Cerra v. Pawling Central School District (2005). This case provides essential insights into how the Second Circuit interprets the requirements under the IDEA, particularly concerning the adequacy of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). If you’re new to this series, consider reading our original post which links to posts about the foundational IDEA decisions, like Rowley and Endrew F., which set important legal standards.

Cerra v. Pawling Central School District (2005) – The Background

The Cerra case arose when the parents of a child with a disability disputed the adequacy of their child’s IEP. Under IDEA, public schools must provide children with disabilities a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The parents argued that the school’s IEP failed to address their child’s unique educational needs and sought reimbursement for private school tuition.

Continue reading

Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District: Clarifying Educational Benefits Under IDEA

Introduction: Positioning Walczak in IDEA Case History

In our ongoing series on landmark IDEA cases, we’ve explored foundational rulings such as Board of Education v. Rowley and Endrew F. v. Douglas County. Today, we turn to another influential case: the Walczak IDEA decision (Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 1998). This Second Circuit case clarified the educational benefit standard schools must meet under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It bridges the foundational principles established by Rowley with the evolving expectations highlighted in Endrew F.

Continue reading

Endrew F. v. Douglas County: Raising the Bar for Special Education under IDEA

Introduction

As part of our ongoing series looking into key judicial decisions shaping special education law, we previously discussed foundational IDEA cases, including our initial overview, Understanding IDEA: An Introduction to Special Education Law, and Board of Education v. Rowley. Today, we explore another significant advancement through the Endrew F. Supreme Court IDEA decision (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 2017). This case clarified and raised expectations for providing a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), redefining how schools approach educational planning for students with disabilities in the Second Circuit and nationwide.

Continue reading

Understanding FAPE: The Landmark Rowley Supreme Court Decision

Introduction

In our previous post, Understanding IDEA: An Introduction to Special Education Law, we introduced the fundamental principles of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Today, we’re diving deeper into one of the most influential Supreme Court cases interpreting IDEA: the Rowley Supreme Court IDEA decision (Board of Education v. Rowley, 1982). This landmark case shaped the standard for what constitutes a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and continues to guide special education law in the Second Circuit and nationwide.

Continue reading

Understanding IDEA: An Introduction to Special Education Law

If you’re a parent, educator, or advocate involved in special education, you’ve likely heard of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Enacted in 1975 and significantly revised in 1990, IDEA ensures that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) tailored to their individual needs. But what exactly does this mean in practice, and how have courts shaped its interpretation?

IDEA provides essential protections and services to students, empowering families and educators to collaborate effectively. However, navigating its complexities can be challenging. Judicial decisions, especially those from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeals, continuously influence how IDEA is implemented, directly impacting educational rights and services.

In this blog series, we’ll examine key Supreme Court and Second Circuit decisions that have profoundly influenced special education law. We’ll begin by focusing on cases from the Second Circuit, as I live and practice in New York City, which falls within this jurisdiction.

Each post will highlight crucial cases, summarize essential legal principles, and explain their practical implications for students, families, and schools.

Continue reading