impairment who needed assistance to load and unload from a school bus, carry books and materials, and use the restroom was not eligible under IDEA because she did not need special education)). The minor changes may constitute related services. Even if the modifications are interpreted as related services, however, Plaintiff would still be ineligible under IDEA because a child who “only needs a related service and not special education ... is not a child with a disability” under IDEA. 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(a)(2)(i); see also Irving Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883, 894, 104 S.Ct. 3371, 82 L.Ed.2d 664 (1984) (“[T]he need for what otherwise might qualify as a related service does not create [eligibility].”); Marshall Joint Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. C.D., 616 F.3d 632, 641-42 (7th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). The record also reveals that the current
holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea holding that physical and occupational therapy are related services and a students need for them does not create eligibility under idea holding that the local educational agency is the appropriate target of a suit under the idea and that private entities cannot be held liable under the statute as the idea obligates the statenot the private schoolto ensure that such children are provided special education and related services in accordance with an individualized education program  holding that by its terms the idea does not require exhaustion where the relief sought is unavailable in an administrative proceeding under the idea monetary damages are not available so exhaustion is not required holding that transfer rule denying eligibility to students transferring from public to private schools did not violate the students rights to due process or equal protection of the laws as provided by the fourteenth amendment