U.S. Supreme Court Building. AFP PHOTO/Manny CENETA

Nancy Huerta is a Kansas City lawyer who represents parents in disputes over special education services provided by public schools. She says mutual respect is the key to avoiding conflict and resolving high-stakes cases — everyone needs to recognize that “not all school districts are evil and not all parents are crazy.”

Federal law says children with disabilities don’t have a right to a “Cadillac” education under federal law. But they are entitled to the special education equivalent of a Chevrolet.

Ms. Huerta says she’s hired to help make sure that the Chevy runs. On Monday, she and other advocates for parents and kids in disputes over special education services got some help — the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 ruling that provides some lemon protection for affected families.

School officials hold most of the cards in such disputes. Parents can contest an “individual education plan” that they believe falls short of the “free appropriate public education” required under federal law. But even the strong cases carry major legal, emotional and financial burdens.

The parents must take on the district’s professional staff and lawyers in a process that can take years to resolve. Out-of-pocket expenses for lawyers and experts easily can reach $25,000 and more.

But this week the Supreme Court subtly — and sensibly — shifted the balance of power to parents. In Forest Grove School District v. T.A., the court made clear that school districts face serious economic risks if they fail to act reasonably.

An Oregon public school district refused special education services to a high school student. The parents didn’t contest the decision. But after seeking independent medical advice, the parents removed their son from the district and placed him in a special private school. They then sued the district for reimbursement of the costs.

Under the existing federal law, parents are entitled to recover the costs of private-school tuition when a school district fails provide adequate special education services. But school districts argued — and many courts had held — that parents must first give the school district plan a chance to succeed.

The Supreme Court Monday rejected that argument, ruling the law imposes no such requirements.
That creates a healthy parity between parent and district in special education cases. Both sides now have major financial incentives to work out their differences and avoid litigation.

Parents still shoulder the burden of proof. Nothing in the decision gives them carte blanche to enroll special-needs children in expensive private programs at public expense. Reimbursements still depend on evidence that school officials failed to meet their legal obligations.

But school districts that stubbornly refuse to offer adequate services might end up paying a heavy price. Parents have the option to place children in an appropriate private program more quickly — starting a very costly tuition clock running.

Districts that gamble and lose now may end up losing big. That gives them incentive to make an extra effort to reach consensus with parents. The high court correctly concluded that everyone benefits when the children are placed first.