With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2009, however the School Districts did not avail themselves of this opportunity before issuing their adjudications on June 29, 2009, or before the trial court accepted supplemental evidence in October 2009. We echo the trial court’s observation that “there has been more than sufficient time (i.e. during the course of this litigation) for [the School Districts] to visit [St. Andrew’s] and determine its suitability for [Montessori].” Trial Court Opinion at 12. Any lack of a record on the adequacy of St. Andrew’s as a school facility is of the School Districts’ own making; they never even returned Montessori’s application to it for more information about the building. Cf. Community Service Leadership Development Charter School v. Pittsburgh School District, 34 A.3d 919 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (<HOLDING>). For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm

A: holding that accrediting agencys denial of schools application for reaccreditation was not arbitrary and capricious because the school was afforded ample notice that it was not in compliance with the accreditation standards and numerous opportunities to remedy identified deficiencies
B: holding retroactive application
C: holding that cab must specifically articulate any deficiencies in charter schools application so charter school can address deficiencies in amended or new application
D: recognizing application of sovereign immunity to school districts
C.