is progressing in functional math, and is interacting socially with staff and peers in ways she never demonstrated at Sharpe.” Id. at 27. Ms. Mattson’s testimony assesses Sharpe only in comparison to Kennedy. The EHA, however, requires the District to provide Ann Marie with an appropriate education, not the best education possible. See Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 199, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3047, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982) (“[T]o require ... the furnishing of every special service necessary to maximize each handicapped child’s potential is, we think, further than Congress intended to go.”). As we have noted, however, “the [EHA] simply does not place the comparative question before the court.” Knight by Knight v. District of Columbia, 877 F.2d 1025, 1030 (D.C.Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). In granting the temporary restraining order
holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds holding that although that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing the appellate court may nonetheless proceed to consider the district courts determination that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted holding that the district court erred in not making an inequitable conduct determination prior to ruling on the exceptional case issue holding the trial court erred in not charging the jury that a defendant had the burden of proving the affirmative defense of comparative negligence holding that the district court erred in overturning on comparative grounds the hearing officers noncomparative determination that the public school was an appropriate placement