“He certainly didn’t need the money,” was the way the lawyer for Thomas Freston, the former chief executive officer of Viacom, explained to our Joseph Goldstein that his lawsuit against the city is being fought on “principle.” The United States Supreme Court yesterday agreed to hear the case, which is about whether the taxpayers should have to reimburse Mr. Freston the tuition for the private school to which he sends his learning disabled son.

Mr. Freston is saving the taxpayers the cost of educating his child in the public school system, so there is a case to be made for sharing with him some of the savings. He apparently believes the private school is better for his child than the public alternatives. New York City’s Department of Education routinely makes such tuition reimbursements for many children, but lately it has been cracking down and requiring parents to at least try a public school special education program before resorting to private schools.

We’re certainly proponents of the idea that parents of Mr. Freston’s means, who pay a hefty share of the taxes in this city yet largely opt out of the public schools, deserve to be able to use their tax dollars on schools that work for their children. Yet where the case starts looking really interesting to us is when the logic is extended not only to children with special needs or learning disabilities, but also to the whole array of children whose parents, for whatever reason, think they could do better in private school than in the government run monopoly system.

You read it here first, this is a case to watch. Many of those who can afford to get out of the government monopoly school system already opt out; allowing the money to follow the student would expand that opportunity to the many who cannot afford it. In other words, the “principle” for which Mr. Freston’s case could be the wedge is not simply that special needs students can be reimbursed when they opt out of public schools but that any and all students who want out of the system can take their funding with them. Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein have, to our delight, radically proposed a new funding approach that, while stopping short of private school vouchers, would lay the groundwork for such choices.

We’d prefer this decision be made at the legislative level in Albany or at the City Council or another legislature or at the executive level by the mayor, rather than being mandated by the Supreme Court of the United States. Legislatures are particularly better equipped to weigh the myriad issues that arise over policies as complex as these, where one could imagine a wave of government money and the attendant bureaucratic restrictions overwhelming our city’s fine independent schools. But if the Supreme Court wanted to enter on the side of school choice and parents rights on this one, the principle it establishes could impact all kinds of children.