Key Takeaways

• Frye Standards are more restrictive and require that testimony, ideas, and methods be generally accepted in the relevant professional community.
• Education experts satisfy Frye by relying on long-standing practices in the field.
• Daubert standards are more permissive, but expert testimony is subject to more rigorous scrutiny to ensure relevance and reliability.
• Education experts meet Daubert’s relevance and reliability requirements by having the appropriate qualifications, relying on sufficient facts and data, and applying relevant industry standards.

Expert witness insights shape litigation outcomes and are subject to scrutiny in cases involving schools and other child- and youth-serving organizations. Courts evaluate expert opinions under Frye, Daubert, or a combination of both, exercising judicial discretion.

These standards warrant early consideration when preparing for trial to guide expert selection and pre-trial strategy. What is often less clear is how they differ in practice and how each one may affect expert opinions.

This post explores the Frye standard vs. Daubert standard distinctions in school liability cases and how the qualified education expert witnesses meet these standards.

Frye Standards of Expert Testimony

Attorneys and expert witnesses generally have limited flexibility when their testimony is subject to the “general acceptance” filter of the Frye standards, particularly in cases where the expert is proposing a novel methodology, theory, or idea, even if the approach yields otherwise reliable results.

Under Frye, admissibility depends on whether the expert’s principles and methods are generally accepted within the relevant professional community, in this case, the field of education.

Court Decisions on Frye Standards

The “general acceptance” impact of the Frye standard vs. the Daubert standard matters is exemplified in People v. Fortin (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 2000), a child abuse case in which the defense’s expert witness sought to admit “Parental Alienation Syndrome” in testimony.

Although he was highly experienced in the psychiatric field and had widely discussed and published this matter, the court excluded the testimony under general acceptance grounds, citing “ it is not for a court to take pioneering risks on promising new scientific techniques…”

This decision illustrates Frye’s limited tolerance for testimony based on theories or methods not widely accepted within the relevant field.

The Same Applies to School Liability Issues

Frye standards place significant limits on techniques not widely adopted in school and child-safety matters.

Let us examine the impact of the Frye standard vs. the Daubert standard in a negligence case against a school or agency where a child is injured due to the behavioral aggression of another child.

Suppose the school knew the child had a history of these behavioral tendencies. Generally accepted practice would require close supervision or implementation of appropriate behavioral plans.

In this case, an education expert witness may rely on established supervision standards to evaluate whether the school met its duty of care.

Non-Established School Practices Face Challenges

Suppose the same expert presents the need for more personalized care approaches, such as trauma-informed supervision by the responsible personnel or predictive analytics. Such opinions may be difficult to admit under Frye.

Although these techniques may be appreciated in educational and mental health settings, they have not been established as requisite student supervision practices in schools due to practical and safety concerns.

Consider Generally Accepted Practices in Education

When navigating the Frye standard vs. Daubert standard, and when Frye Standards apply, the strongest expert testimony is that which is predicated on traditional, well-established standards and practices in the field of education administration and child safety and supervision, rather than cutting-edge techniques.

How School Liability Experts Meet Frye Standards

Education experts at the School Liability Expert Group meet Frye by grounding their opinions in established professional standards of care specific to different school activities.

The professional standard of care serves as a benchmark, providing guidance on what actions an individual with similar training and experience would take in a comparable situation to anticipate, prevent, or respond to a child’s injury or risky behavior.

Basis of Education Expert Testimony

Such testimony relies on:

• Long-standing supervision models used in K-12 schools
• Widely adopted administrative practices
• Guidelines issued by recognized education and child-safety organizations
• Peer-reviewed education research that reflects mainstream practices

By basing opinions on what schools actually do, experts at the School Liability Expert Group are better positioned to satisfy the Frye standard vs. Daubert standard admissibility requirements in school liability cases.

Daubert Standards of Expert Testimony

Courts using the Daubert standard, that is, all federal courts and most states, will weigh the reliability and relevance of expert witness testimony under Rule 702.

In this Frye standard vs. Daubert standard application, the judge, not the professional community, acts as the “gatekeeper” in determining admissibility of evidence.

Daubert Is More Permissive

The Daubert standards allow courts to admit a wide range of expert testimony, including testimony based on emerging methods, so long as the testimony is supported by sufficient facts and data and grounded in reliable principles and methodologies.

Daubert is More Rigorous

The challenge with Daubert’s liberality is that it opens up the expert testimony to broader and more rigorous scrutiny and challenge in court.

Accordingly, in Frye standard vs. Daubert standard matters, parties must prepare to support expert opinion with strong, well-documented proof.

Expert testimony must first reasonably meet the requirements of Rule 702 and then satisfy evaluation under the Daubert factors, which assess whether:

• The expert is qualified.
• The expert’s knowledge will be helpful to the trier of fact
• The testimony’s content is relevant and reliable

The Five Daubert Factors

Expert testimony is usually evaluated using the following Daubert Standards:

• Whether the expert’s theory can be tested using empirical evidence rather than pure logic or speculative opinions.
• Whether the opinion has been subjected to peer review or published in industry journals and publications.
• Whether there is a known or potential error rate associated with the experts’ theory or methodology that can influence conclusions.
• Whether some well-maintained standards and controls exist to act as a benchmark for assessing the expert’s methodology or theory.
• Whether the expert’s theory or methodology is “generally accepted” in the field.

Courts Retain Discretion

Daubert factors are non-exhaustive, and generally no single factor is considered more important than the others.

In navigating the Frye standard vs. Daubert standard matters, parties must understand that courts may apply their own interpretations and exercise legal discretion in how they use these factors to scrutinize expert testimony, depending on the nature of the case.

How School Liability Experts Meet Daubert Standards

Daubert’s emphasis on relevance and reliability means education experts must show that their opinions are based on sufficient, case-specific facts and reliable methods.

Consider a negligence case where a child with a disability is hurt. An expert may opine that a school’s failure to provide a specialized service or accommodation was the proximate cause of the child’s injury.

However, it is not enough for the expert to state that conclusion. The expert must also explain how the conclusion was reached. This focus on the process is what separates the Frye standard vs. the Daubert standard.

Let us examine how competent education experts meet these Daubert requirements in practice.

Providing Qualified Experts

Under the Daubert Standards, the expert must be qualified in the subject matter of the case so that their testimony is relevant and helpful to the trier of fact.

The School Liability Expert Group includes experts with experience in education administration and supervision, with backgrounds including roles such as teacher, coach, and administrator. This gives our team a real-world insight into how schools function.

It allows the appropriate expert to be matched to the specific issues in a case, whether it involves disability discrimination, abuse, personal injury, or HIB.

Conducting Extensive Research

Another key distinction between the Frye and Daubert standards is that, under the Daubert standard, education experts may rely on a vast pool of sources to support their opinions.

The team at the School Liability Expert Group conducts independent, case-specific research to gather sufficient facts and data. In a bullying case, for instance, this may include reviewing incident reports, records, documentation, witness interviews, statistical data, and past judicial decisions related to HIB.

Using multiple sources, including peer-reviewed research, helps ensure that expert opinions are evidence-based and not speculative.

Applying Appropriate Standards

In Frye standard vs. Daubert standard matters, expert opinions are expected to rely on existing standards as a benchmark for evaluating conduct.

Education experts at the School Liability Expert Group are versed in the standards governing educational operations and student safety.

These include federal and state laws and guidelines issued by organizations that oversee school activities, such as athletics.

Most importantly, these experts understand activity-specific professional standards of care in schools. They review school policies and practices to assess whether there is a breach of standards.

Best Practices for Expert Testimony in School and Agency Liability Cases

The Frye Standard vs. Daubert Standard distinction affects what expert opinions are admissible and how those opinions must be supported.

Frye standards are generally restrictive and focus on whether an expert’s methods are usually accepted in the field. Daubert standards are more permissive, but testimony is subject to rigorous scrutiny for reliability and relevance.

Attorneys should be proactive in determining their jurisdiction’s applicable standards, as state courts may apply Daubert, Frye, both, or modified versions of these standards when evaluating expert evidence.

This determination guides expert selection and the preparation of testimony.

Vetting an Expert Witness

When navigating Frye Standard vs. Daubert Standard dynamics, attorneys should thoroughly vet prospective expert witnesses and prioritize qualifications that directly align with the case’s subject matter.

Carter v. United States illustrates that education and general experience do not necessarily equate to the requisite qualifications in testimony admissibility procedures. In this case, a physician’s general medical background was deemed inadequate to allow him to testify on emergency care standards, a specialty in which he lacked direct experience.

For attorneys handling school and agency liability cases, this means ascertaining that an expert’s experience, qualifications, and methodology directly support their opinions. Doing so strengthens admissibility under the Frye Standard vs. the Daubert Standard.

Find Expert Witness Services in School Liability Cases

At School Liability Expert Group, hundreds of law firms across the United States and Canada, as well as schools, agencies, and parents, have engaged our court-qualified experts for trial and deposition testimonies, comprehensive case reviews and reports, and consultations in school and agency liability issues. Explore our testimonials to find out why clients value our services.

Our education expert witness team has diversified and unmatched experience in the field of education administration and supervision. It assists with a wide range of school or agency liability matters, including, but not limited to, special education services, student supervision, employee hiring, supervision, and retention, child custody issues, school transportation matters, Title IX, and abuse. The team is well-versed in the Frye and Daubert standards for each court system.

Book a call with an expert today to learn how we can assist with your case.