aff'd, 767 F.2d 518 (8th Cir.1985); Riley v. Ambach, 508 F.Supp. 1222 (E.D.N.Y.1980). As Springdale School District, supra, indicates, placement in a state school for the blind or deaf may be contrary to the “mainstreaming” requirement of the EAHCA. It all depends on the individual child. Nonetheless, the state, having accepted the funds of the federal government and acceded to the administrative and appellate scheme of the EAHCA, has an overriding duty to provide an appropriate IEP for every handicapped child capable of benefiting from one. This overriding obligation may require that some children be placed at KSB, who do not meet its criteria, if such placement is the only way an appropriate IEP can be designed for them. See Doe v. Maher, 793 F.2d 1470, 1491-92 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>), aff'd sub nom. Honig, 108 S.Ct. at 607
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 an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child holding that when information which potentially undermines the best interest of the child as well as the interest sought to be protected by the legitimation statutes and the policy of this state it must first be tested in light of the best interest of the child standard holding legislature was required to provide a system of free education to the public including programs for the handicapped 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