How can judges rule fairly in a case that establishes a precedent affecting thousands of children, when the case they hear bears little resemblance to the vast majority of related cases? That's the question that's been on my mind since November 14, 2005.

That's when the Supreme Court ruled 6-to-2 that parents who appeal their child's special education plan have the legal burden of proving that the plan was not appropriate under federal law.

The case before the justices, Schaffer v. Weast, concerned a Montgomery County, Maryland boy whose parents, unhappy with the county's special education plan for their son, appealed the plan and in the interim moved their son to a private school that they felt would better meet his needs. Because the wheels of justice turn so slowly, the boy is now in college. (Does that mean maybe his parents were right?).

The majority decided that special education appeals should be subject to the same standard that applies in civil trials: the one with the complaint bears a heavier burden. But is a special education dispute the same as a civil trial? Dissenting Justices Breyer and Ginsburg argued that because the playing field is so uneven -- school districts start out with the expertise, the staff lawyers, and the deep pockets while many parents have nothing but their own belief that their child needs and deserves better -- the burden should always rest with the district.

The Schaffers fought long and hard to make that argument. They had prevailed in one lower court, lost in another. They are highly educated, high-octane parents, not easily intimidated by judges, lawyers and PhD's. I admire their persistence through the years...but can't help being struck by this: it probably takes parents like the Schaffers to get a case to the Supreme Court, but that very fact undermines the basic argument that parents aren't equipped to go toe-to-toe with school districts.

The world of special education is full of paradoxes, but this is one of the most troubling: the kids who most need someone in their corner with an advanced degree, a sturdy bank account, a commitment to their success and a ton of attitude are least likely to get that. (The last two items -- the commitment and the attitude -- may be available in ample supply for any child. But the advanced degree and the bank account are probably more important.)

Think about a single mom with a GED juggling two or three low-wage jobs, sitting alone across the table from her child's principal, special education teacher, classroom teacher, school psychologist, etc.

I would have liked to hear that mother's case aired in the rarified atmosphere of the Supreme Court chambers.

In any case, some special education experts believe that Schaffer v Weast will not have much of an impact in the courtroom. Charles Fox, writing in his special education law blog, makes some good points on this score, and so does Wrightslaw's Pete Wright.

It could be that the most important impact will be in how parents and school officials respectively view their chances when a special education dispute gets to a hearing officer.