With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". As part of its analysis rejecting the “child benefit” principle, the California court in Riles stated that it could not harmonize the reasoning of Allen II, Meek, and Wolman with regard to the loan of other instructional material such as maps, globes, and charts. Riles, 632 P.2d at 960-61. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has had difficulty reaching harmony in this regard. However, such a disharmony no longer exists in the United States Supreme Court jurisprudence since the Court stated in Mitchell that Meek and Wolman were “no longer good law” in this regard. Mitchell, 530 U.S.at 808. Moreover, not only is the United States Supreme Court now clear in its analysis that textbook and instructional material programs that benefit all children regardless of the sch .S. 1 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The United States Supreme Court has in

A: holding that the establishment clause does not bar local school district from providing a publiclyemployed interpreter for a deaf student in a parochial school
B: holding that the regulation prohibits the provision of an interpreter to a student in a sectarian school
C: holding the tlo standard governs school searches when school resource officers  who although employed by the local police department are primarily responsible to the school district  are acting in conjunction with school officials
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
A.