The Supreme Court made official last week what many school officials already knew to be true: The lack of adequate federal support for special education makes it one of the most divisive issues many towns will face at budget time. An amendment sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins last week gave the issue the priority it needs to be solved.

The battle over special education is a battle over money. The court’s recent ruling that requires a school in Iowa to provide a full-time nurse to a disabled student was a clear conclusion that the federal government has passed on an enormous mandate to the states. As the court noted in its minority decision, that mandate is largely unfunded. Washington promised to pay 40 percent of special-education costs when it created these requirements; it actually delivers less than 10 percent.

What the special-education conflict is not about is finding fault with parents who ask for legitimate special services for their children. The federal government has placed these families in a terrible position, particularly in small towns where the cost of educating each student is noticed. Because Washington has not paid its promised share, mothers and fathers ask for services for their children knowing it will place a tax burden on their neighbors. They have no choice. But the effect on local school budgets is obvious to anyone who looks.

The failure of the federal government to pay its share of the cost amounts to a $60 million a year loss to Maine and helps explain why Gov. Angus King drew support from fellow governors when he asked President Clinton not long ago to fully fund Washington’s share of the program. The proposal sponsored by Sens. Collins, Jim Jeffords of Vermont and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, which passed unanimously, would direct any money approved for new education programs to special education until Washington’s $11 billion a year commitment is fulfilled. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that the legislation is attached to a bill called Ed Flex, which expands a pilot program to provide waivers from some federal regulations for all states and encourage education reform. The initial bill is popular enough to pass, but it is being used by Democrats to pass much of President Clinton’s education programs. Republicans have countered that new programs should not receive funds until an existing one — special education — is properly funded. Stalemate, at least temporarily.

Republicans have the right idea on this issue, and should press Democratic colleagues with the question of how they can be sure their programs do not constitute new unfunded mandates given the federal government’s track record on special education.

The growing burden of special education on school budgets should keep this issue before Congress. Sen. Collins has found a forceful way to make sure it is treated fairly.