The ramifications of the Washington state Supreme Court’s decision that shields the identities of teachers accused of sexual misconduct won’t be felt suddenly, and if history is any guide, it won’t be easy to unveil. That’s the nature of sexual abuse. That’s the nature of dealing with school districts.

The lawsuits that ultimately produced this ruling began when the Seattle Times was working on its devastating series on coaches who abuse student athletes (usually girls), then quietly slip away to offend again. In the 2003 series, the Times found 159 coaches who had been fired or reprimanded over the course of 10 years. At least 98 of them continued coaching.

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Mary Fairhurst said school districts should investigate such complaints thoroughly and if substantiated, then names can be released. That presupposes that school administrators are willing and able to conduct such investigations.

But, according to the Times, the reality is that administrators are not trained as investigators, that investigations are shoddy and the results are kept under wraps. Because most coaches also are teachers, they have the legal backing of their union. Rather than take on the union’s attorneys, some districts have devised six-figure settlements that get rid of the coaches but keep their deeds a secret.

It’s an appallingly shortsighted solution. For all a school knows, its replacement coach is a sex offender.

Districts also are afraid to incur the negative publicity that surrounds such cases. Mindful of upcoming bond and levy elections, they want to buff their schools’ images, not sully them. Plus, administrators have their own careers to protect.

What should be the highest priority – the safety of kids – is too often shunted aside by risk management. The state Supreme Court’s ruling exacerbates that reality. Rather than buttressing the case for transparency and the kids’ safety, the court came down on the side of the 15 teachers who sued to ensure that their records would not be turned over to the newspaper.

For sure, it would be unpleasant for a teacher to be wrongfully accused of sexual misconduct. But that is true for anyone. Yet their names are divulged before guilt is determined.

Citizens are obliged to send their children to schools, where teachers have control and authority over them. It is because of that relationship that sexual misconduct can emerge. Transparency is the best assurance that our children will be safe. It would shine a light on the abusive teachers before they scurry elsewhere.

But now the state Supreme Court has given them hope that they will never be exposed.