resolution of IDEA concerns. In addition, children protected by the IDEA benefit greatly from quick resolution of disputes because lost education is a substantial harm, and that harm is exactly what the IDEA was meant to prevent. Id. at 957. The court concluded that a two-year statute of limitations served those policies: It was short enough to allow expeditious resolution of claims, but long enough to allow parents “the opportunity to protect their disabled children’s rights.” Id. at 958. We agree with the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation of the policy underlying the IDEA. Moreover, its choice of a two-year limitations period is in accord with the lengths of limitations periods approved by most other courts. See James v. Upper Arlington City Sch. Dist., 228 F.3d 764, 769 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Birmingham v. Omaha Sch. Dist., 220 F.3d 850,
holding that a twoyear statute of limitations applies to negligence claims under texas law holding that a twoyear statute of limitations period applies to all  1983 actions brought in pennsylvania holding fouryear period for statutory actions applies to section 440205 claims holding that either a fouryear or a twoyear limitations period applies to claims under the idea in ohio for tuition reimbursement either way the claims were timebarred holding that the limitations period for  1983 actions arising in ohio is the twoyear period found in ohio rev code  230510 and that the limitations period starts to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action 