Fair play on special education

THE U.S. Supreme Court corrects an imbalance in power by ruling that public school districts must pay for special-ed students' private schooling if districts cannot provide an adequate alternative.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), parents have been entitled to recoup the costs of private-school tuition but only if the child attended a district's school and services were proven inadequate.

The court rightly extends the law now to students who aren't enrolled in the public schools. It allows parents to seek remedy without having to enroll their child in a school they know will be unable to meet their special needs.

This decision will have far-reaching implications. More than $12 billion in IDEA aid will be going to school districts nationwide the next two years. The targeted spending is part of the federal stimulus approved through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Many districts, struggling with tight budgets, try mightily to do the right thing by special-education students. But the balance of power has rested unfairly with these districts. They can opt not to qualify a student as disabled or they can offer inadequate educational remedies. Parents can appeal these decisions but they are at a practical and financial disadvantage.

Justice John Paul Stevens offered the most persuasive reasoning of why the law needed to tilt more toward parents:

"It would be strange for the (federal) act to provide a remedy, as all agree it does, where a school district offers a child inadequate special-education services, but to leave parents without relief in the more egregious situation in which the school district unreasonably denies a child access to such services altogether."

Nothing in the court's ruling gives parents carte blanche to enroll their special-needs children in expensive private programs at taxpayer expense.

Parents still shoulder the burden of proving school officials failed to meet their legal obligations. But now parents stymied by a district that stubbornly refuses to offer adequate services has another route.

The court's decision ought not chill important cooperation between parents of special-education students and fair-minded districts. The optimum goal is that districts and parents iron out problems without litigation.

This goal is aided by the court's decision which creates a healthy parity between school districts and parents.