With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". discussed, Plaintiffs’ claims and alleged injuries are educational based, and the fact that Plaintiffs contend that the current educational plan is sufficient does not render exhaustion futile. At its heart, this dispute is about a failure to sufficiently provide a public education to Justin and the adverse educational consequences of that failure. Requiring Plaintiffs to proceed under the IDEA’S administrative process in such a case is not futile. See Charlie v. Bd. of Educ. of Skokie Sch., 98 F.3d 989, 993 (7th Cir.1996) (Easterbrook, C.J.) (“Both the genesis and the manifestations of the problem are educational; the IDEA offers comprehensive educational solutions; we conclude, therefore, that at least in principle relief is available under the IDEA.”); N.B., 84 F.3d at 1379 (<HOLDING>); Robb v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 308 F.3d 1047,

A: holding that a plaintiff may not avoid exhausting the administrative remedies by requesting money damages
B: holding that a party may gain judicial review without exhausting its administrative remedies where pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile where strict compliance would cause irreparable harm and where the applicable statute is alleged to be void on its face
C: holding that exhaustion is required under the plra even if the plaintiff seeks only money damages and money damages are not available as relief
D: holding that a procedural default in exhausting administrative remedies bars relief in federal court
A.