The concepts of educational malpractice and educational accountability are emerging more frequently in educational literature and as the basis of court cases. Up until now, no suits charging educational malpractice have been successful, but observers predict that suits charging schools with negligence will be successful. One basis for the court's dismissal of Peter Doe v. San Francisco Unified School District was that no commonly accepted definition of correct educational practice has been devised, so that "malpractice" is impossible to define. The court in Ianello v. University of Bridgeport held that education is not a consumer service. In Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School District, it was found that no legal duty had been improperly performed. Student litigants in malpractice cases misrepresent themselves when they do not acknowledge that lack of achievement is at least partially dependent on the student. Parents too are guilty of misrepresentation when they do not acknowledge their own responsibility to be aware of their children's lack of achievement and to attempt to discuss problems with the school at an early date. Advocates of educational malpractice suits assume an overly simplistic view of education. Nevertheless, educators must make positive efforts to reform their schools and make them accountable to the public. (Author/JM)