Sch. Bd., 927 F.2d 146, 153 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 859, 112 S.Ct. 175,116 L.Ed.2d 138 (1991); White v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., 343 F.3d 373, 380 (5th Cir.2003) (school districts have disere tion on the location of special education services); see also AW v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 372 F.3d 674, 682 (4th Cir.2004) (finding no mandate that the student must be assigned to the closest school). School districts are permitted to centralize services and the preference for neighborhood schooling is one of many factors which the school district is entitled to consider. See Barnett, supra, 927 F.2d at 153. Further, the school district is not required to move a program or service to a child’s neighborhood school. See Kevin G. v. Cranston Sch. Comm., 130 F.3d 481, 482 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 956, 118 S.Ct. 2377,
holding that a school district was not required to make dramatic changes to its program in order for a child to attend his neighborhood school holding that school district policy requiring that students obtain the review and approval of school officials prior to distributing any written material violated free speech rights of students 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 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 holding that a school district was not required to move a nurse to a students neighborhood school to comply with the idea