In a state with the lowest per-pupil funding in the nation, there's just cause for concern when the possibility exists to further dilute those resources.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act authorizes reimbursements for private school tuition, even when a child has never received special-education services from a public school.

School administrators nationwide fear the ruling will lead to a jump in expensive private-school placements and will cut into special education funding for students in public schools.

As Justice David H. Souter, who dissented from the 6-3 decision along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, wrote, "The more private placement there is, the higher the special education bill, a fact that lends urgency to the IDEA's mandate of a collaborative process" in developing individualized education plans under the law.

Public school educators, administrators and boards of education worry that families will not first reach out to public schools to determine the best placement for a special-needs child. Some public education groups may ask Congress for a legislative remedy.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said fears that this interpretation of IDEA will impose a substantial financial burden on public schools and prompt parents to immediately enroll their children in private school are "unfounded."

The parents in this case, Forest Grove, Ore., School District v. T.A., won the right to argue for reimbursement. Under existing law, parents are entitled to reimbursement if a federal court concludes both that the public placement violated IDEA and the private school placement was proper under the act. Then, the courts have discretion to reduce reimbursement awards if the equities so warrant, according to the opinion.

It is premature to determine what practical effect this ruling will have in Utah. The vast majority of students who require special education are served in public schools. There are some private programs and schools, but they run the gamut of speech and language therapists who provide direct services to therapeutic programs for children with addiction and behavior problems.

Utah can ill-afford siphoning off resources from its already lean public school resources. We hope special educators in public schools will view this ruling as added impetus to provide the best possible programming for students with special needs, thus encouraging other parents to make a deliberate choice to place their children in public school programs, which not only benefit students with disabilities when they attend regular education classes but teach important lessons to other students in mainstream classes.