By contrast, review by writ of certiorari to the state's highest court is discretionary and is used for significant issues of public interest. The adoption of the district court's position would pose another problem under federal law, which we describe, but which we need not resolve in light of our holding. Under that position, parents or school systems seeking to appeal from decisions by impartial review officers acting pursuant to the IDEA would effectively have less than thirty days within which to seek judicial review. Thus, about half of the thirty days had elapsed before the parties even knew of the decision. The delay occurred because the hearing officer forwarded the decision to the state Department of Special Education, which then forwarded it to the parties.
Bureaucracies being what they are, some delay is inevitable.
Whether less than thirty days to seek review would be inconsistent with the IDEA's goal of parental involvement is a serious issue. Finally, even if we were to choose the applicable statute of limitations based solely on the requirements of state law, it is far from clear that chapter 60 is applicable here. By its terms, this exclusion from the APA applies only to chapter 60, and not to the provisions of chapter 39 on which the Providence Department relies. If one probes behind the literal terms of the chapter 60 exclusion provision, there is little reason to think this exclusion was meant to apply to disputes between a child and a school system, like the dispute here. That the Rhode Island legislature may have intended to exempt the Board of Regents from these rules under certain circumstances does not necessarily mean that the legislature intended to exempt from judicial review under the APA matters within the purview of chapter 39 concerning benefits owed to children under education laws.