Anna is a 13-year-old student who has a learning disability and is eligible for special education and related services. Anna's parents enrolled her in the Private Academy for fifth grade; her frustration, inappropriate behaviors, and inattention had increased during fourth grade. In its year-end report, the Private Academy described Anna's functioning levels fairly positively, although the school also indicated she had struggled in fifth grade and required extra attention. The Private Academy recommended continuation of the program she had been receiving, and described her as a lethargic learner. The District developed an individualized education program (IEP) for Anna and recommended a classroom for students with learning disabilities in a District elementary school; the parents rejected this program and requested a due process hearing, seeking tuition reimbursement for private school, as well as for a program to remediate her. In this case, Anna's IEP was judged as to its appropriateness at the time that it was written, and not with respect to subsequently obtained information about the student. It is important to note that "an IEP is a snapshot, not a retrospective," and that the IEP must take into account what was objectively reasonable at the time that it was drafted. The Circuit Court ruled that the parents could not force the school district to adopt what they perceived to be an even more effective educational program.