accommodate Katherine’s needs that are “within reason.” Tokarcik v. Forest Hills School Dist., 665 F.2d 443, 455 (3d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1121, 102 S.Ct. 3508, 73 L.Ed.2d 1383 (1982) (related services). As noted by the Supreme Court in its first interpretation of the terms of the EAHCA, furnishing handicapped children with only such services as are available to non-handicapped children would in all probability fall short of the statutory requirement of “free appropriate public education”; to require, on the other hand, the furnishing of every special service necessary to maximize each handicapped child’s potential is, we think, further than Congress intended to go. Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 198, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3047, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982) (emphasis added) (<HOLDING>). The Court concluded that the “basic floor of
holding that the eha established right to public education for students with disabilities that consists of educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction holding that police lawfully entered defendants residence to assist children after defendant admitted that the children were not his and that he had been arrested for indecency with a child previously holding that wisconsin violated equal protection rights of handicapped children by denying them an education at public expense holding that whenever the local agency refuses or wrongfully neglects to provide a handicapped child with a free appropriate education that child can be best served on the regional or state level holding that the eahca does not require the states to maximize the potential of each handicapped child commensurate with the opportunity provided nonhandicapped children