With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “the [IDEA]’s preference for mainstreaming was aimed at preventing schools from segregating handicapped students from the general student body” and that “the school district ha[d] presented no evidence that the [IDEA’S preference for mainstreaming] was meant to restrict parental options when the public schools fail to comply with the requirements of the [IDEA] (emphasis in original)), the district court’s consideration of Lindamood-Bell’s restrictive nature was proper because it considered the restrictive nature only as a factor in determining whether the placement was appropriate under the IDEA, not as a dispositive requirement. M.S., No. 1:05cv1476, 2007 WL 1378545, at *16, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33735, at *49; see also M.S ex rel. S.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 105 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). C. Validity of 2005-2006 IEP Finally, we

A: holding that personal jurisdiction can be premised on the placement of a product into the stream of commerce
B: recognizing that parents seeking an alternative placement may not be subject to the same mainstreaming requirements as a school board but concluding that the ideas mainstreaming requirement remains a consideration that bears upon a parents choice of an alternative placement and may be considered by the hearing officer in determining whether the placement was appropriate
C: holding that a private alternative placement need not meet the criteria of a fape
D: holding that protective placement statute unconstitutionally deprived individuals of an automatic periodic reexamination of the need for continued protective placement
B.