Guangzhou primary and secondary schools' two off-campus practical activities per school year are written into law — who bears responsibility if students are injured? Shenzhen lawyer interprets the division of liability.
On August 13, the Standing Committee of the Guangzhou Municipal People's Congress published the "Guangzhou Municipal Regulations on Off-Campus Practical Education for Primary and Secondary Schools (Draft Revision for Comment)", which proposes that primary and secondary schools conduct no fewer than two off-campus practice sessions per academic year, and explicitly stipulates that patriotic education bases, libraries, museums, and other venues be open to students free of charge. If the regulation is passed, it will become the first local legislation on off-campus practical education nationwide, and its provisions on the allocation of safety responsibilities and cost-sharing mechanisms will have direct reference significance for Shenzhen and other cities in the Greater Bay Area. As a Shenzhen lawyer deeply engaged in the field of education law, I believe this draft not only responds to the practical needs of experiential education following the "Double Reduction" policy, but also clarifies at the legal level the boundaries of rights and responsibilities among schools, venues, and guardians. This article will analyze the legal risks and response strategies in off-campus practice from a lawyer's perspective, in conjunction with the Civil Code, the Law on the Protection of Minors, and relevant judicial
I. Incorporating Practical Education into Legislation: The Legal Enforcement Power Behind Quantitative Standards
The draft for public comments fixes the frequency and class hours of off-campus practice in legislative form: no fewer than two times per academic year, at least 20 class hours per academic year for primary schools, 24 class hours for junior high schools, and a cumulative total of 60 class hours over three years of senior high school. This means that off-campus practice will shift from a flexible arrangement of "optional" to a statutory obligation for schools. From a legal perspective, this constitutes a mandatory provision under administrative law. If schools fail to meet the requirement, they may face orders for rectification or administrative sanctions from the education administrative department.
However, the lawyer would like to remind that the statutoryization of obligations inevitably comes with stricter liability. As schools organize practical activities with increasing frequency, students are exposed to outdoor environments, traffic, and unfamiliar places for longer periods, raising the probability of accident risks. In practice, when courts hear such cases, they focus on whether the school has fulfilled its duties of "education, management, and protection." For example, in a case where a student was injured during a spring outing organized by a primary school in Shenzhen, the court ruled that the school bore 70% of the compensatory liability because it failed to conduct safety inspections of the venue and had an insufficient number of accompanying teachers. Therefore, while implementing the "two sessions" hard target, schools must simultaneously upgrade their safety management measures; otherwise, what is meant to be a "good deed" may turn into a "lawsuit."
II. Allocation of Liability for Student Injuries: Article 1200 of the Civil Code and the Principle of Presumed Fault
The Draft for Comments clarifies that if personal injury occurs to students during off-campus practical activities, tort liability shall be determined in accordance with the Civil Code and other regulations. This directly points to Article 1200 of the Civil Code: if a person with limited capacity for civil conduct suffers personal injury while studying or living at a school or other educational institution, the school shall bear tort liability if it fails to fulfill its educational and managerial duties. For persons without capacity for civil conduct (usually referring to those under the age of 8), the principle of presumption of fault under Article 1199 applies, meaning the school must prove itself free of fault; otherwise, it is presumed liable.
In judicial practice, the liable parties in off-campus practical activity accidents are often not limited to schools. For example, if injuries are caused by defects in venue facilities, the venue manager or owner bears fault liability in accordance with Article 1253 of the Civil Code; if harm results from the acts of a third party (such as tourists at a scenic spot), then under Article 1198, the direct tortfeasor bears liability, and if the venue fails to fulfill its safety protection obligations, it bears supplementary liability. There is a case in Shenzhen: when a middle school was conducting practical activities at a science and technology museum, a student was injured by a loose exhibit that fell. The court ruled that the museum bore primary liability, while the school bore secondary liability for failing to promptly stop the student from touching the hazardous area.
The lawyer suggested that schools should establish a closed-loop mechanism of "pre-event assessment + during-event control + post-event documentation." In particular, written evidence such as field trip inspection records, safety education sign-in sheets, and teacher assignment rosters should be preserved, because in litigation, the burden of proof for "fulfilling management duties" rests with the school.
III. Boundary Between Free and Paid: How the Law Balances Public Interest and Market-Oriented Operations
The Draft for Comments categorizes off-campus practice venues into two types: those that "should be open to the public free of charge" and those that "may charge fees or offer discounted access." The former includes museums, science and technology museums, and memorial halls funded by fiscal funds, while the latter covers farms, zoos, botanical gardens, and other venues operated under market mechanisms. This classification reflects the law's respect for the nature of public resources, but it also harbors a point of controversy: if schools choose fee-charging venues, does this constitute disguised fee collection?
Article 25 of the Compulsory Education Law clearly stipulates that schools shall not charge fees in violation of national regulations. In practice, the allocation of costs for off-campus practical activities has always been a high-incidence area of home-school conflicts. This draft categorizes transportation, accommodation, and admission tickets as personal expenses for students, while stipulating that teaching material fees and medical supply fees shall be borne by the school, providing a clear basis for cost allocation. However, lawyers would like to remind that when organizing fee-charging projects, schools must strictly adhere to the principles of "voluntariness and non-profit," and must not force students to participate in activities at fee-charging venues; otherwise, they may be suspected of violating regulations. Previously in Shenzhen, parents complained that a school forced the purchase of scenic area tickets, and ultimately the education bureau ordered a refund and disciplined the relevant responsible persons.
From another perspective, the dynamic management of the free venue list also requires legal refinement. The draft requires education departments to establish a resource directory, but if the directory is not updated in a timely manner, schools may mistakenly select fee-charging venues due to information asymmetry, leading to disputes. It is recommended that schools proactively verify the directory status with education departments before selecting venues and retain records of communication.
IV. Home-School Communication and Risk Prevention: How Guardians Can Use Legal Weapons to Protect Their Rights
The draft requires schools to notify parents in writing five working days in advance of practical activities, and allows students with special physical conditions to apply for alternative arrangements, which echoes Article 35 of the Law on the Protection of Minors, which stipulates that schools should ensure the physical and mental safety of students. For parents, this is not only a matter of the right to know, but also a window period for risk intervention.
In legal practice, a common misconception among parents is that "if the school organizes an activity, the school is entirely to blame if something goes wrong." However, in reality, if the school has fulfilled its duty to inform, and the parents concealed their child's history of heart disease, leading to an incident during the activity, the court may reduce the school's liability in accordance with Article 1173 of the Civil Code (where the injured party is also at fault for the occurrence of the same damage, the tortfeasor's liability may be mitigated). Therefore, parents should truthfully fill out health declaration forms and properly retain written notices issued by the school.
Additionally, the draft encourages parents to voluntarily purchase personal accident insurance, but lawyers remind that commercial insurance cannot replace the school's statutory liability. If the school shirks responsibility after an accident by claiming "already insured," parents can directly claim compensation from the school under the Civil Code, with insurance payouts serving only as additional compensation. In one case, a parent in Shenzhen sued the school after it refused to compensate, and the court ruled in the parent's favor, ordering the school to pay medical expenses and emotional distress damages.
V. Implications for Shenzhen: Space for Reference and Optimization in Greater Bay Area Education Legislation
Guangzhou's legislation this time holds "first-mover advantage" reference significance for Shenzhen. As a pilot demonstration zone, Shenzhen issued the "Shenzhen Compulsory Education Stage School Off-Campus Practical Education Guidelines" as early as 2021, but it is only a normative document with a relatively low level of legal validity. If Shenzhen follows Guangzhou's example in legislation, it needs to focus on resolving three issues: first, clarifying the legal application and insurance coordination for cross-regional practices (such as trips to Hong Kong and Macao); second, refining the venue recognition standards for digital practices (such as virtual reality teaching); and third, establishing a city- and district-level mediation mechanism for off-campus practice accidents to reduce litigation costs.
For schools and educational institutions, I recommend conducting proactive compliance self-inspections before the regulations are formally passed: review whether existing activity plans meet frequency and class hour requirements, check the safety liability clauses in contracts, and purchase adequate school liability insurance (the current recommended coverage in Shenzhen is no less than 500,000 yuan per person). For parents, if their rights are infringed during practical activities, they should immediately preserve evidence (such as on-site photos and medical records) and promptly consult professional lawyers. The Education Legal Team of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has long focused on campus safety and the protection of minors, having represented multiple off-campus practice disputes, and can provide schools and parents with full-process legal services from contract review to litigation representation. The life of the law lies in its implementation; the beautiful vision of off-campus practical education requires solid rule-of-law safeguards to underpin it.
