to the First Circuit: In the end, the judicial function at the trial-court level is “one of involved oversight,” and in the course of that oversight, the persuasiveness of a particular administrative finding, or the lack thereof, is likely to tell the tale. Lenn, 998 F.2d at 1087 (citation omitted). (C) Definition of Terms: “Adversely Affects Educational Performance” Federal regulations do not define the phrase “adversely affects ... educational performance.” Instead, “each State [gives] substance to these terms.” J.D. ex rel. J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir.2000); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1401(8) (free appropriate public education provided-to students with disabilities must “meet the standards of the State educational agency”); Town of Burlington, 736 F.2d at 789 (<HOLDING>); see generally Garda, supra, at 465-86. (1)
holding that the idea incorporates by reference state standards be they substantive or procedural that exceed the federal basic floor of meaningful beneficial educational opportunity holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law holding that the reference to any court encompasses both state and federal courts holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law