## Facts

- Peter W., an 18-year-old graduate of a San Francisco public high school, alleged he attended district schools for 12 years.
- He sued the San Francisco Unified School District, the superintendent, the governing board, and individual board members.
- The first amended complaint asserted seven causes of action sounding primarily in negligence, all based on alleged failure to provide adequate instruction, guidance, counseling, and supervision in basic skills such as reading and writing.
- He alleged that despite graduation he had severely deficient basic academic skills, causing diminished earning capacity and requiring remedial assistance.
- Defendants demurred to all counts; the trial court sustained the demurrers with leave to amend.
- Plaintiff did not amend within the allowed time, and the trial court dismissed the action; plaintiff appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a former public-school student may state a tort cause of action against school authorities for allegedly inadequate education (“educational malpractice”).
2. Whether the complaint’s allegations, taken as true on demurrer, established a cognizable duty and workable standard of care for the quality of educational services.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of dismissal.
- The court held that no cause of action lies in tort against public school authorities for alleged negligent failure to provide an adequate education.
- Because none of the seven counts stated a valid claim, sustaining the demurrers and dismissing the action was proper after plaintiff declined to amend.

## Legal Principles

- California law does not recognize a tort claim for “educational malpractice” based on generalized allegations that public schools provided inadequate instruction or counseling.
- A negligence claim requires a judicially manageable duty and standard of care; courts will not formulate or enforce broad educational-quality standards through tort litigation.
- Educational adequacy disputes present serious causation and damages problems because educational outcomes are affected by many non-school factors, making proof and valuation highly speculative.
- Courts are poorly situated to supervise educational policy choices (curriculum, pedagogy, resource allocation) through private damages actions, which would risk judicial intrusion into administrative and legislative functions.
- On demurrer, courts accept well-pleaded factual allegations but disregard conclusory assertions; conclusory allegations of negligent “inadequate education” do not establish a legally actionable duty.

## Conclusion

The court rejected tort-based “educational malpractice” claims against public school authorities, holding that alleged inadequacy of instruction and related educational services does not create a judicially enforceable negligence duty, and affirmed dismissal after the plaintiff failed to amend.


Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 60 Cal. App. 3d 814 (Ct. App. 1976)