Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
was pursuant to a settlement agreement, not an IEP team decision. Outside of settlement, AACPS maintains, it has no authority to place students in non-approved schools. The parents refute all of these contentions. Although the ALJ did not reach this issue, we note that the weight of the evidence, both testimonial and documentary, supports AACPS’s contentions, as does the caselaw and the statute itself. See, e.g., 20 U.S.C.A. § 1412(a)(10)(B) (providing that when public agencies place children in private schools, “the State educational agency shall determine whether such schools and facilities meet standards that apply to State educational agencies”); Carter v. Florence County Sch. Dist. Four, 950 F.2d 156, 162 (4th Cir.1991), aff'd, 510 U.S. 7, 14, 114 S.Ct. 361, 126 L.Ed.2d 284 (1993) . In sum, the record fully supports the ALJ’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that though the school districts plan was adequate the parents were still entitled to tuition reimbursement under the pendency provision
B. holding that the unilateral placement of a student by the parents in an unapproved school is not by itself a bar to tuition reimbursement but public schools may not place students in unapproved schools
C. holding that schools have no duty under the due process clause to protect students from assaults by other students even where the school knew or should have known of the danger presented
D. holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement
E. holding that a federallyfunded program in which public school teachers provided remedial education to disadvantaged children in parochial schools as well as public schools did not violate the establishment clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.