20 U.S.C. § 1415. Where Congress has provided for the exhaustion of administrative procedures, Congress’ intent “is of paramount importance ... because Congress is vested with the power to prescribe the basic procedural scheme under which claims may be heard in federal courts.” Patsy v. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 501, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982). Accordingly, our inquiry is not whether general policies favor requiring the exhaustion of California’s CRP, but whether requiring such exhaustion would be consistent with IDEA’S procedural scheme. 1. Our starting point is the text of the IDEA. When Congress provides a “detailed exhaustion scheme,” courts generally lack discretion to add additional exhaustion requirements to the scheme. Patsy, 457 U.S. at 509-511, 102 S.Ct. 2557 (<HOLDING>); see also Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137,
holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional holding that detailed exhaustion scheme of the civil rights of institutionalized persons act cripa is inconsistent with discretion to impose on an ad hoc basis a judicially developed exhaustion rule in other cases holding that cases claiming that government action requires just compensation must be determined on an ad hoc  basis recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different holding exhaustion requirement inapplicable when requiring exhaustion would be futile