With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". decision, when the parties agreed to transition Z.S. back to public school with a plan approved by all parties and supported with a transition plan from CCCD. Contrary to Carmel’s assertions, the IHO decision declaring the 2007-2008 IEP inadequate effected a material change between the parties in connection with the subsequent negotiations. Our Court recognizes a distinction between claims for tuition reimbursement pursuant to the pendency provision and claims for tuition reimbursement pursuant to an administrative determination that a school district has failed to provide a FAPE. See Mackey ex rel. Thomas M. v. Bd. of Educ. for Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 386 F.3d 158, 160-61, supplemented sub nom. Mackey v. Bd. of Educ. for Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 112 Fed.Appx. 89 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Carmel claims that the IHO decision did not

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 either a fouryear or a twoyear limitations period applies to claims under the idea in ohio for tuition reimbursement either way the claims were timebarred
D: recognizing application of sovereign immunity to school districts
A.