Sources used in this document:

Given this finding, the Hooks then argued that Nevada law and the school district policy violated IDEA. The Court offered a statutory analysis of the language "private school or facility" to stress that the "IDEA leaves discretion to the [s]tates." First, it analyzed the usual meaning of the phrase, stating that the plain language "does not require that exempted home education qualify as a 'private school or facility.'" Then it turned to the OSEP interpretation, because it is the agency "charged with implementing and enforcing the IDEA.

It stated that the school district satisfactorily provided the Hook's son with a "free appropriate public education." By turning down the offer, the Hooks rejected the attendant subsidized special services. Lastly, the Court negated the Hooks' 1983 claims, arguing that the school district's policy did not violate due process and equal protection principles of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

ANALYSIS: Home schooling has continued to grow, with a large number of parents assuming the responsibility of caring for their disabled children. In states where home schooling is not under the definition of private school, parents will have to choose between paying for the necessary services or placing their child in public school. A consistent decision has to be made across the country that clearly defines IDEA.