Washington politicians say, “Social Security is the third rail of national politics. Touch it and you die.”

Is special education the third rail for school board members? Too risky to talk about? It looked that way last month.

Maybe we can ease the emotionalism with a candid recognition of the facts and issues that confront everyone involved. First, some acknowledgments.

• The idealism behind the goals of special education represent humanity at its finest.

• Virtually everyone directly involved has the best of intentions.

• There’s a national shortage of the special education teachers and associates who are among the most highly trained and dedicated professionals in our school district.

• For many satisfied students, parents and teachers, the programs are doing exactly what they’re designed to do. Heartwarming stories with happy endings.

The federal legislation is called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. It creates legally enforceable rights for parents. Children with disabilities must be given “free appropriate education” that meets their unique needs.

What the legislation doesn’t do is pay for them. It’s an “unfunded mandate.” Senators Jim Jeffords (R-VT) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) are trying to fix that. But for now the federal government only pays 12 percent of the cost.

It’s understandable, even commendable, that parents fight for their children’s legal rights and are frustrated when they aren’t provided. Wouldn’t you be?

But it’s also understandable that school administrators are equally frustrated when required to provide services that aren’t fully funded, or set aside rooms for special ed when there aren’t enough schoolrooms for regular classes.

Nor are there precise definitions of IDEA’s 13 categories of disability.

They include everything from autism to mental retardation to speech and visual impairment. Professionals’ estimates of  “learning disability” vary from 1 percent to 30 percent of the population.

With complex laws, often vague standards, and high stakes, even the IDEA’s required “evaluation” phase is difficult, expensive and potentially confrontational. So is the “individual education plan.”

A skilled and caring special ed teacher may find herself trying to teach, not four or five, but a dozen students with very different disabilities, each of whom may need one-on-one instruction.

Even the best special ed professionals find recommended interventions don’t always work. There may be safety concerns. Disruptions for other students. A needed specialized expertise may not be available.

Nor is the work risk-free. As one educator told me, “If I was with someone who beat and bit me as much as that kid I’d be told to get out of that relationship.”

Many argue that all students benefit from the “inclusion” of disabled students in regular classrooms. The law guarantees them the “least restrictive alternative.” But professionals may think a given child is better served in another environment. What then?

Regular classroom teachers may not be trained in special education. Even if they are, the disproportionate amount of time focused on disabled students (one teacher I know has nine) deprives other students of attention.

What our nation now has are legislative good intentions that put severe economic and other strains on school districts. Frustrations for administrators, special ed teachers and associates, classroom teachers and parents.

One of our most distinguished special ed teachers advises the Board, “It’s not all about money. Don’t overlook the big issues.” She’s right. We won’t.

But whether it’s increases in federal or state income taxes, or local property taxes, at some point money becomes an issue.

Somewhere in the midst of all this are the disabled students themselves. Each a valued person. Each deserving of the best our society is willing to afford.

One of the toughest challenges confronting any civilization is calculating how much that is.

Nicholas Johnson is an Iowa City School Board member. More information is available on his Web site www.nicholasjohnson.org.