Aspects of legality

Beyond the aspects of compliance there are many legal implications that must be considered when teaching. As I said above we will briefly concentrate on professional negligence and the somewhat new term educational negligence.
As educators we have to understand that we live in an era of legal ramification where any type of litigation might be placed upon us. One reason for this is that students and/or parents may feel that teachers have failed in teaching the basic concept and ideas to their students. Through some initial research it appears that this is a relatively new thing to come up. One interesting point I found was that in all the reading the term Negligence is used instead of malpractice.
The following are some definitions of the two words;

Negligence: noun [U]when you do not give enough care or attention to someone or something

Malpractice: noun [U] SPECIALIZEDfailure to act correctly or legally when doing your job, often causing injury or loss
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=48409&dict=CALD)

Well one answer eludes to the fact that teachers are classed as pubic servants. However for new scheme teachers it is a good idea to learn both definitions and use them as gospel. Essentially they are one in the same.
A teacher can be found negligent for a variety of reasons. However, some of the most common reasons why a teacher is found negligent relates to duty of care.
Hicksons lawyers presented a paper that is a must read for new scheme teachers to help understand what a teachers responsibilities are http://www.nswtf.org.au/campaigns/files/Impact_Civil_Liability_Act.pdf is the website of this report. I relation to injury, Helen Newnham writes “Negligence is part of tort law and deals with grievances between individuals where one party has suffered as a result of something the other party did or did not do. The purpose of negligence is to receive compensation for the injuries sustained.” (http://ajte.education.ecu.edu.au/ISSUES/PDF/251/Newnham.pdf ). One thing that must be acknowledged is that there are differing levels of risk. On e area where negligence might be found is if a teacher was to take a practical class without the formal training. In PDHPE risk might be low however in Industrial arts it would be high. This means if you are asked to teach practical classes without training you may be found negligent.
One other area is in regard to ethics. As a teacher the student is your number one focus. Therefore engaging in a personal relationship with a student or taking advantage of a student is also an issue. All be it legal and ethical.
In relation to educational negligence, One would think that if teachers are going to be sued because of issues in regard to their teaching, then teachers have a legal obligation (within this context) to ensure the correct educational requirements are met. Surely then, in the context of teaching students, any type of negligence should be classed as ‘Educational Malpractice’. Overall this is a relatively new idea. Teacher Tube has no videos on the topic and finding any information within Australia is nearly impossible. However it is an issue that is beginning to gain momentum and I am sure that within the next 5 -10 years we will see more documentation on the topic. Below is an article on educational negligence case in England.
Phelps V Hillingdon London Borough Council
Pamela Phelps was severely dyslexic. She attended a mainstream senior school. She was assessed by an educational psychologist who noted Pamela's difficulties with reading and writing but failed to diagnose dyslexia. When Pamela left school 5 years later her reading age was that of an eight-year-old. She was employed for a short period but lost her job because of her literacy problems and was unable to find a new job.
Pamela sued her Local Educational Authority (LEA) claiming they were responsible for the educational psychologist. She claimed the educational psychologist was negligent for failing to diagnose her dyslexia. The judge who heard the case agreed with Pamela and awarded her £45,000 as compensation for her past and future loss of earnings.
The LEA appealed to the Court of Appeal who reversed the decision. They stated that the educational psychologist did not owe a duty of care to pupils, as this was too onerous a burden. Even if Pamela's dyslexia had been diagnosed it was too difficult to say that a different teaching approach would have made a measurable difference and improved Pamela's literacy.
That decision effectively barred the majority of educational negligence claims in this country. However, on 27th July 2000, the House of Lords overturned that decision and similar decisions in 3 other cases.
The House of Lords stated that teachers and educational psychologists are professionals and therefore as professionals they have a duty to the pupils they teach to act with reasonable skill and care. This is similar to the duty owed by a doctor to his patients. If that professional acts are negligent then the LEA, as their employer, is responsible for their acts.
It is now possible to claim compensation if a teacher or other education professional acts negligently. This duty of care does not just apply to children with special needs such as dyslexia but to all pupils. If a teacher carelessly teaches the wrong syllabus he may be negligent and his pupils may be able to claim compensation.
Educational negligence will still be difficult to prove. Negligence claims can only succeed if the teacher acted in a way no other reasonable teacher would have done. It is not sufficient to show a poor standard of teaching, for example. In addition, a pupil must show that the negligence caused some measurable harm to the pupil before he can be awarded compensation.
http://alexanderharris.co.uk/article/EDUCATIONAL_NEGLIGENCE_108.asp

Most malpractice cases I found had to do with universities having to pay back fees as students felt that their educational needs were not met or the methods being taught were outdated and held no practical use for them. Imagine a lifetimes worth of school fees being returned to a parent after the HSC if negligence was found!