Risk Management in K12 STEAM Programs: Part 2

Based on the first article with a summary of risk management and its practices in the K-12 educational sector. This will focus on the science, STEM, and CTE programs across the grade levels and how risk management is connected to the activities that are taught, the field trips and excursions planned, and the safety reviews of these by the legal, facilities, or program services department at the district level.  Because this is a continuation of the original article, please review the first of this two-part series to make more informed decisions about this topic.  As a brief recap, risk management asks, “What would a prudent person do?” in situations and decides based on performing a hazard analysis as part of the regular safety review.  Certain school programs have more natural risks than others; we will explore these in detail here in Risk Management in K12 STEAM.

The evaluation of the science, STEM, and CTE programs for some real-life examples of what constitutes risk and ways to minimize that risk and allow students the opportunity to learn in a tactile, inquiry-rich laboratory is the objective.   As mentioned earlier, teachers are responsible for performing a hazard analysis and a risk assessment and then taking safety action based on that evaluation.  These safety reviews are a necessary part of the overall pedagogical approach and are covered under the educator’s duty of care obligations. However, according to a recent school safety report (Love, Roy, Sirinides) these safety reviews are not occurring as often as they should (a hazard analysis should be performed for ALL activities before these occur).  Specifically, for CTE, science and STEM situations, teachers should not perform demonstrations without a curricular connection or for entertainment purposes.  Demonstrations intended solely to entertain are inappropriate for the educational setting and are more likely to be unnecessarily hazardous and increase liability to the educator.  As Dr. Ken Roy will attest, you MUST complete a ‘AAA’ or ‘Triple A’ hazard analysis before any activity planned in your program to determine the educational value contrasted with the inherent risk factors for conducting the demonstration or the investigation with students. 

There are many examples of teachers who wanted to make their classes ‘fun, interesting, and memorable’ for their students and who were successful in accomplishing that task.  Most of the time, these events occur, and not a single person is injured.  Most of the time (but not all of the time), these events occur, and students are inspired and engaged.  Most of the time, these ‘events’ are designed to entertain the students rather than connect the dots or reinforce prior learning and introduce a new concept.  Many teacher resources have been published for various grade and subject areas that will provide teachers with a demonstration activity for a topical or content area or, even more broadly, something interesting to do every day of the year to ensure your students are engaged in their learning.  The science teacher in Virginia in October 2022 was trying to do this for his chemistry class when the accident occurred. Students were burned from the methanol fireball which resulted from not understanding the chemical properties and safer handling techniques.  This key point is critically important and needs to be repeated.  Demonstrations intended solely to entertain are inappropriate for the educational setting and are more likely to be unnecessarily hazardous and increase liability to the educator.   If you remember nothing else from this article, let this be it.

Understanding the Legal Standards

Talking about CTE and liability is not a common conversation or a comfortable one for members of the joint health and safety committee and those from facilities services, occupational health, and safety, or potentially even the HR department depending on the region and their school district policies and procedures.  However, this is a necessary and legally required conversation that is two-way street under OSHA or equivalent legislation.  The safer use of power tools and equipment is covered under the OSHA regulations CFR 1910.242, 243, and 244 (Subpart B) as well as under OSHA 1910.1200 the HazCom Standard, and other recognized safety standards which are applicable to employees working in science labs or any other area where there are potentially hazardous chemicals. For example, according to OSHA, the purpose of the Hazard Communication Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200 (HCS) is “to ensure that the hazards of all chemicals produced or imported are evaluated and details regarding their hazards are transmitted to employers and employees.”

Few administrators or supervisors in school follow the basic principles of the HazCom Standard (OSHA 1910.1200) They fail to transmit the chemical hazard details via formal staff training and access to the information. In other words, non-science teachers assigned to science labs lack the necessary awareness and understanding of chemical hazards and resulting risks present in the science lab, prep room and chemical storeroom. Hazards can arise in the classroom even if the non-science teacher does not directly work with the chemicals. For example, a non-science professional might not be prepared if a bottle of alcohol or acid inadvertently smashed and splashed a laboratory occupant. Another example is a gas leak. A science educator would know where to locate the master gas shutoff, but a math teacher might need assistance due to a lack of training and awareness on engineering controls and appropriate safety measures.  This is the underlying reason why safety training is provided to educators that is specific to their subject area (referred to as their assignment) and the equipment, apparatus, machinery, chemicals and biological hazards present in their working environment.

Many OSHA standards also provide rules that protect workers in laboratories from chemical, biological, physical, and safety hazards. For example, there can be potential exposures to electrical hazards resulting from faulty electrical equipment/instrumentation or wiring, damaged receptacles and connectors, or unsafe work practices. Students off-task playing with electrical sources could potentially receive electrical shock or even worse – electrocution!  Non-science professionals should also learn about the OSHA general duty clause. Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to provide their employees with a workplace that is free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. With the known potential hazards in the science lab and no other standard applies to the particular hazard, the general duty clause can apply when the employer’s own employees are exposed to the alleged hazard. All the following elements are necessary for OSHA to prove a general duty clause violation:

• The employer fails to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which its employees were exposed.
  • The hazard was recognized.
  • The hazard was likely to cause death or serious physical harm.
  • There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard.

Impact of Professional Development on Risk Management

Professional development (PD) is extremely important for new teachers and experienced teachers since it elevates the level of safety awareness and allows educators to better identify, predict and resolve potential hazards and risks and make corrective safety actions . As a new teacher, you will be facing a wide range of challenges, both in the classroom and in your professional life, and from a risk management perspective, having the appropriate safety training that is geared to your grade level and subject area are essential. Professional development can help you to develop the skills, knowledge, and confidence you need to be successful as a teacher, and safer in your daily practice in STEAM education, especially when it involves your colleagues and your students.  According to a study published in the Journal of Education for Teaching, “Effective induction programs and comprehensive professional development were found to be key factors in teacher retention, particularly for new teachers.” (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011)  This is critically important from a risk management perspective and applies to classroom teachers as well as the school administration who also need to be aware of the inherent risks involved with hands-on activities in these subject areas.   This is due to the ‘shared liability’ that exists under the Duty of Care obligations and the subsequent duty of instruction, duty of supervision, and duty of maintenance which are central to the responsibility and accountability for educators.

Professional Development that is age and stage appropriate can help new teachers to:

• Understand and implement the curriculum and instructional strategies that are appropriate for their students using safety as a foundational pillar.
• Understand and manage the different aspects of classroom management, such as behavior management, classroom organization, and student motivation. (Feiman-Nemser, 2001)
• Develop effective teaching strategies, such as the use of technology, cooperative learning, and formative assessment. (Darling-Hammond, 2009)
• Understand and manage the administrative aspects of teaching, such as record-keeping, parent-teacher communication, and compliance with school and district policies. (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011)
• Develop effective professional relationships with colleagues and other educators. (Feiman-Nemser, 2001)
• Be better able to assess hazards and risks and take corrective safety actions based on their safety evaluations PRIOR to any activity being demonstrated or conducted in the laboratory.
• In addition, PD can also help new teachers to stay up-to-date on the latest research, trends, and best practices in their field, which is particularly important for new teachers who may not have a lot of prior experience. (Darling-Hammond, 2009).

Occupancy Loads in Academic Laboratories (K12) present Risks

Science leaders are also being challenged to help meet legal aspects for formal academic science laboratories (primarily secondary levels) and classrooms equipment for science activities (primarily elementary level). The “duty or standard of care” required for each student by science teachers acting as a reasonable person must be addressed in helping to make laboratories safer. There is acknowledgement of the limitations of insurance in denying coverage for reckless and intentional acts by science educators. There is also the potential for individual liability for acts outside the course and scope of the employment. In addressing the occupancy safety issues, the items for consideration should include:

1. The number of laboratory occupants makes a significant difference in traffic flow, trip/slip fall hazards and individual monitoring.
2. Increasing the number of laboratory occupants in a science/STEM laboratory increases the likelihood of accidents.
3. Higher pupil/teacher ratio over the 24-student maximum professional standard constitutes a threat to science/STEM laboratory safety based on current research.
4. Exceeded occupancy loads challenge a teacher to safely handle, transport and use laboratory chemicals and equipment, thereby creating an unsafe working environment.
5. Exceeded occupancy loads can also increase classroom management issues, which in turn contribute to unsafe conditions.

One of the greatest challenges for science educators is to address the professional quasi-legal and legal occupancy load standards for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a safer teaching and learning environment. Based on current research, a maximum class size of 24 students is the academic and safety expectation for school science/STEM laboratories. This is providing the legal occupancy load standard is met which approximates 50 sq. ft. net/occupant in a lab and 60 sq. ft. net/occupant in a “clab” or combination lecture/laboratory.  Actual occupancy load is determined by the local authority having jurisdiction (e.g., fire marshal) based on factors such as square footage, type of furniture, utilities, chemical hazards, energy sources, sprinkler system, and number of exits.

In order to address professional quasi-legal and safety standards based legal occupancy loads for laboratories, the National Science Education Leadership Association strongly recommends the following:

For existing science/STEM laboratories:

1. Review NFPA and ICC codes for academic institutions. science/STEM laboratories. Again, the science/STEM educator’s state or town may have additional or alternative codes, which need to be researched and met.
2. Have the “authority of jurisdiction” assist to determine the occupancy load design of your laboratory facility.
3. Work with administrators in efforts to achieve and exceed the code/standard; g., changing factors necessary to better meet code/standard, reduction in class size to meet occupancy load.
4. Reduce or eliminate hands-on activities which in the science/STEM teacher’s judgement are unsafe in cases where laboratory occupancy loads are surpassed.

Risk Management Recap for K-12 school systems for STEAM subjects

Ideally, this has provided you with a better understanding of current risk management practices in schools and districts who are always working to ensure that they offer safer and secure environments for students to learn and staff members to teach.  There are a variety of interconnected aspects to having a successful risk management and mitigation program in your schools that involve a unique recipe involving various forms of awareness.  These key areas will assist you in making more informed decisions from a responsible risk management and curricular vantage point.   

• Understanding of the various regulatory compliance rules that exist to provide a safer working and learning environment (OSHA, NFPA, EPA, NIOSH, CDC, ADA, IDEA);
• Performing a comprehensive hazard analysis and risk assessment and making corrective safety actions PRIOR to any activity in the laboratory;
• Creating a safer environment through a combination of practical engineering controls, administrative controls and PPE;
• Providing appropriate professional development and safety training that is specific to the grade level and discipline for every teacher annually;
• Recognizing that the Bradley Curve and Heinrich Safety Triangle models are a baseline for understanding the safety culture in your school(s) and have value in reducing liability and minimizing potential exposure;
• Understanding that ‘new’ or non-science educators are known liabilities in school systems due to lack of experience and adequate safety training;
• Having the required, certified, appropriate PPE on-hand for all occupants of the laboratory;
• Understanding the importance of adequate ventilation systems in the laboratory;
• Recognizing the occupancy load restrictions in laboratories and not having more students than the legal capacity of the room
• Ensuring that all educators understand their responsibility and accountability under the Duty of Care obligations that exist;

Having a greater understanding of these key aspects of responsible risk management programs and how these all contribute towards minimizing liability and providing a safer environment for every person in the school are central to the success of your individualized program.  Remember that risk management does not apologize for safety!

References:

•  Risk Management for K-12 Schools in Science, STEAM and CTE Programs 
• Safer Engineering and CTE Instruction: A National STEM Education Imperative: What the Data Tells Us  2021) Dr. Tyler S. Love (Penn State University, Harrisburg) and Dr. Kenneth Russell Roy (NSTA Chief Science Safety Advisor).
• Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), pp. 1013-1055.
• Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), pp. 201-233.
• OSHA Regulations
• Duty or Standard of Care, National Science Teachers Association Safety Advisory Board White Paper
• Stroud, , Roy, K. R., & Doyle, K. S. (2021). Science Laboratory Safety Manual (4th ed.). National Safety Consultants, LLC
• Triple AAA Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment
• Occupancy Loads in Academic Laboratories