consider a continuum of placements fails. B. Substantive Arguments 1. Whether Sarah’s IEPs Addressed All of Her Needs Under the IDEA, an IEP must include “a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, designed to — (aa) meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and (bb) meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability.” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(l)(A)(i)(II). In view of this requirement, the Seventh Circuit has held that “[t]o meet the second, substantive criterion of Rowley, an IEP must respond to all significant facets of the student’s disability, both academic and behavioral.” Alex R., 375 F.3d at 613 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue that Sarah’s IEPs failed to
holding that iep that fails to address disabilityrelated actions of violence and disruption in the classroom is not reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits  holding that court may order reimbursement of private school expenses incurred by parents of handicapped child in successful challenge to iep brought under eha predecessor to idea stating that it is beyond cavil that appropriate relief would include a prospective injunction directing the school official to develop and implement at public expense an iep placing the child in a private school and affirming reimbursement award against petitioner local school district  holding idea requires transportation of disabled child only to address his educational needs and does not require school district to accommodate a parents unrelated noneducational preferences holding that an individualized educational program that merely provided for educational services as appropriate did not result in the denial of a free appropriate public education holding that when a school district  knows or should know that a disabled childs educational program is deficient yet fails to correct the problem the child is entitled to compensatory education for a period equal to the period of deprivation but excluding the time reasonably required for the school district to rectify the problem