Tag:

STEM

Adult teachers seated around tables in a bright classroom during a professional development workshop, taking notes while a facilitator speaks at a whiteboard
Science SafetyScience and Lab SafetyProfessional DevelopmentK-12Hot Topics - controversialSTEM and STEAM EducationSchool Safety

Importance of Safety in STEAM Programs

by Science Safety & Dr. Kenneth Roy
written by Science Safety & Dr. Kenneth Roy 9 minutes read

Safety must be a top priority when planning STEAM laboratory experiments or demonstrations by thoroughly assessing potential hazards and associated health and safety risks and taking appropriate safety measures based on the findings. It is crucial to ensure the well-being of everyone involved and minimize the risk of accidents or injuries.

Health and Safety Risks

Understanding that there are inherent potential safety hazards and health and safety risks in laboratory instructional spaces is central to accurately assessing safer instructional practices and procedures in the teaching/learning site.  Potential safety hazards and resulting health and safety risks in a laboratory or classroom instructional spaces can range from minor accidents, such as cuts and bruises, to more severe incidents, such as chemical spills—the potential for fires or explosions that can result in injury or even death.  

We can prevent incidents with proper training, awareness, and understanding of the materials selected for use, including chemical, biological, and physical hazards in specific STEAM instructional areas in school buildings.

Prioritizing a Plan

Understanding this necessitates how essential it is to prioritize safety when planning and conducting hands-on laboratory experiments and teacher demonstrations.  As the instructor in the instructional space, you must have appropriate safety training annually.  The safety training components must be based on your grade level, discipline, and the materials and equipment used to help you deliver the curriculum expectations to your students covered under OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1450 and 1910.1200. 

There is a requirement to be appropriately safety trained on your initial hire before you step foot in the laboratory or classroom instructional space, and on an ongoing annual basis as well as if you change your assignment, such as a new grade level or subject area.  Can you recall the last time you had this type of comprehensive safety qualification training?  If not, you must register for a cohesive, current, and certificated course for your protection and understanding.

The Importance of Safety Awareness 

Here are some of the reasons why safety awareness is crucial in hands-on laboratory experiments:

  1. Protecting students and teachers: The primary reason to prioritize safety in hands-on laboratory experiments is to protect students and teachers from potential harm or injury.  The teacher’s responsible for identifying potential safety hazards and resulting health and safety risks and taking appropriate safety action measures to prevent accidents.  Proactively conducting a possible safety hazard analysis, resulting in health and safety risk assessment and taking proper safety actions resulting from this evaluation. 
  2. Minimizing liability: Schools are legally responsible for providing their students with a safer learning/teaching environment.  Failure to do so can result in lawsuits, financial damages, and a reduction to the school’s reputation caused by legal and often shared liability.  By prioritizing safety in hands-on laboratory experiments, schools can minimize their liability exposure and protect themselves from potential legal consequences, often through having appropriate ongoing safety training and using standard operating procedures in a chemical hygiene plan or safety manual from the school district.
  3. Enhancing the learning experience: A safer laboratory environment can enhance students’ teaching/learning experience. When students feel safer and comfortable in the laboratory instructional space, they are likelier to engage in the experiment and focus on learning the material. Conversely, when students are worried about their safety, they may be distracted and unable to focus on the experiment.  Educators should not try to replicate online activities that involve dangerous practices or potentially hazardous materials but use these as teachable moments, having students reflect on the safety rules broken during the move found online to elevate their safety awareness by observing with a critical lens for safety and compliance.  
  4. Compliance with regulations: Schools must comply with local, state, and federal regulations regarding laboratory safety. Failure to comply with these regulations can result in fines, legal action, and loss of funding. By prioritizing safety in hands-on laboratory experiments, schools can ensure that they comply with these regulations.  There are legal safety standards from OSHA, NFPA, EPA, and others, as well as better professional safety practices from NSTA, NSELA, CSSS, ITEEA, ACTE, and other organizations, all working in tandem to create safer instructional spaces for students and staff members.  Knowingly not following a known safety regulation is a serious violation. It can result in a finding of negligence or recklessness in case an accident or injury results from this poor decision.  It is best to follow established safety procedures/protocols and, when in doubt, ask a colleague or a mentor before proceeding.  Safety first!

How Safe Is Your Instructional Space?

Most teachers consider safety a top priority when planning and conducting hands-on laboratory experiments, which is validated through a survey conducted by the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA).  The survey found that 98% of science teachers believe safety is crucial to science education (NSTA, 2014). This result indicates that most science teachers recognize the importance of safety in hands-on laboratory experiments and prioritize it in their teaching practices.  The same survey found that science teachers reported implementing various classroom safety practices, including enforcing safety rules, using personal protective equipment (PPE), and conducting student safety training. These findings suggest that science teachers recognize the importance of safety and actively work to ensure a safer learning environment for their students. 

Prioritizing Laboratory Safety

In addition to the NSTA survey, other studies have shown that science teachers prioritize safety in hands-on laboratory experiments. For example, a study by Gormally et al. (2009) found that science teachers trained in inquiry-based teaching methods were likelier to prioritize safety in their classrooms than those unprepared.  Overall, there is a consensus among science teachers that safety is essential in laboratory experiments, and many teachers implement various safety practices in their classrooms to ensure a safer teaching/learning environment for their students.

Increasing Safety Awareness

There are several effective ways to increase safety awareness in instructional space settings. The following are some of the best practices:

Provide safety training: One of the most effective ways to increase safety awareness is to provide safety training to teachers and students. Safety training should include information about the potential hazards/risks in the laboratory/classroom instructional space, safer standardized operating procedures, and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Teachers should also provide regular refresher training to reinforce the importance of safety and to update students on any changes to safety protocols.  Before any hands-on lab activity, the teacher should model the appropriate safety techniques and behaviors for all students, ensure that the procedures have an element of safety before experimentation begins, and review the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for potential concerns.

Post safety signs  Posting appropriate safety signs in the laboratory/classroom instructional space can help to remind students of the potential safety hazards/risks and the safety procedures they should follow.   Posting safety signage also provides for the location of the safety equipment, such as fire extinguishers, eye wash stations, fume hoods, showers, etc. Signs should be clear, concise, and visible from all laboratory/classroom instructional space areas. Safety signs include emergency exit signs, warning signs for hazardous materials, and instructions for using safety equipment.  Some teachers have students create safety signs or posters at the beginning of the year or semester to be advocates and have some agency over safety in their laboratory/classroom instructional space.

Conduct safety inspections Regular inspections can help identify potential safety hazards/risks and ensure safety procedures are in place. Safety inspections should be conducted by an independent inspector or the Chemical Hygiene Officer knowledgeable about laboratory safety and responsible chemical management practices. The inspector should provide recommendations for improving safety and follow up to ensure that any issues are addressed using a defined inspection checklist complete with digital photographs and related regulatory legal compliance (OSHA, NFPA, ANSI/ISEA) and better professional safety practices (NSTA, ITEEA, ACS, etc.) alignment.

Encourage a safety culture Teachers should encourage a safety culture in the laboratory/classroom instructional space by promoting open communication about safety concerns and encouraging students to report any safety issues. If students find a damaged or broken piece of equipment, apparatus, or tool, they should immediately notify their instructor so these can be removed from use to prevent accidents. Teachers should also lead by example and model safer behaviors in the laboratory/classroom instructional space, such as the use of PPE, material handling, emergency procedures (eye wash, shower, fire extinguisher, chemical spills), and use of safety acknowledgment forms with their classes to ensure that every occupant is aware of their responsibility in the laboratory/classroom instructional space.

Use safety checklists These can ensure all safety procedures are followed appropriately. Checklists should include all known protocols and be specific to each laboratory/classroom instructional space. Additionally, checklists need to be reviewed before starting any hands-on experiments. Safety checklists can help identify potential hazards/risks, ensure safety procedures are followed, and provide a platform for elevating safety awareness and regulatory compliance.

Ensure alignment with regulatory compliance

All activities in the STEAM program must be based on an understanding of legal safety standards and better professional safety practices involving multiple dimensions, including chemical labeling, use of SDSs, adherence to a Chemical Hygiene Plan and Hazard Communication standard, the use of appropriate PPE, and conducting a potential safety hazard analysis and resulting health and safety risk assessment and taking any necessary safety actions based upon this evaluation. Recognizing potentially hazardous situations, proactively preventing them based on standard operating procedures and experience, and using critical thinking skills will help make the laboratory/classroom instructional space safer for all occupants.   

Having a Comprehensive Approach

To summarize, increasing safety awareness in laboratory/classroom instructional spaces requires a comprehensive approach that includes safety training, safety signs, safety inspections, a communicated and practiced safety culture, and safety checklists. By implementing these accepted better professional safety practices, teachers can ensure a safer teaching/learning environment for their students in the STEAM program in their buildings. 

Educators have a duty of care obligation to provide a safer instructional space for their students, and having the understanding and ability to recognize potential hazards and resulting risks while proactively making corrective safety actions is central to increasing the level of safer instruction in laboratory/classroom instructional spaces across the country. When in doubt, ASK for help or clarity.  It is that simple to be safer.

References:

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2011). Prudent laboratory practices: Handling and managing chemical hazards (Updated Version). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • National Science Teaching Association (NSTA). (2014). Safety in the science classroom. Retrieved from https://www.nsta.org/
  • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (n.d.). Laboratories. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/laboratories
  • Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B., & Armstrong, N. (2009). Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 1-22.
  • National Science Teachers Association. (2014). Safety in the science classroom. Retrieved from https://www.nsta.org/
  • Science Safety Resources for Educators 2023 https://edcircuit.com/science-safety-intro/
  • STEAM Safety Advice for New Teachers, March 2023 https://edcircuit.com/steam-safety-advice-for-new-teachers/

 

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinWhatsappCopy LinkEmail
An empty classroom with rows of wooden desks and chairs, a whiteboard and shelves of books, bright daylight from the windows
Science and Lab SafetySchool Design and FacilitiesK-12STEM and STEAM EducationSchool SafetyScience Safety

Occupancy Load in STEAM Instructional Spaces

by Science Safety & Dr. Kenneth Roy
written by Science Safety & Dr. Kenneth Roy 11 minutes read

How many students can I legally have in my STEAM instructional space?  

Most educators and school building administrators are unaware of legal safety standards and better professional safety practices related to occupancy load in science or STEM instructional spaces. Science/STEM instructional spaces (e.g., science/STEM laboratories, classrooms, combination labs/classrooms, field sites, etc.) can create a real problem.  This article will explore what you need to know in regard to the occupancy loads in science/STEM instructional spaces and the safer number of students allowed based on the square footage in your rooms. 

This resource is an attempt to aggregate the necessary information and access to further analyses and implementation, as well as a road map for overcoming potentially ‘unsafe’ or ‘overcrowded’ occupancy sizes in science/STEM instructional spaces in your school(s).  Please verify all information with your local and/or state fire marshal office, which has jurisdiction over the schools in your community.

Occupancy Load in School Instructional Spaces

Occupant load, by definition, is the total number of persons that might occupy a building or portion thereof (like a science/STEM lab, maker space, or classroom) at any one time. If too many people occupy a facility, the risk of injury and illness emergency increases dramatically.  According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), one means of addressing life safety involves calculating occupant loads in school buildings and their instructional spaces encompassing classrooms and laboratories. (NFPA 101 Life Safety)

Class Size & Calculating Space 

Based on current research, a maximum class size of 24 students 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 “C-lab” or combination lecture/laboratory. Local authorities determine the actual occupancy load (e.g., fire marshal) based on factors such as square footage, type of furniture, utilities, chemical hazards, energy sources, sprinkler system, and the number of exits. 

Remember these important legal safety standards and better professional safety practices when calculating the square footage required in your science/STEM instructional space for occupancy load levels :

  • 20 square feet net per occupant in a classroom* (NFPA 101 Life Safety Code — 2021)
  • 50 square feet net per occupant in a traditional science laboratory (NFPA 101 Life Safety Code – 2021)
  • 60 square feet net per occupant in a combination lecture/laboratory instructional site (NSTA Position Statement: Liability of Science Educators for Laboratory Safety)

Based on these equations, your laboratory must be a minimum of 1200 square feet net (with the deductions calculated for furniture and fixtures) and a minimum of 1440 square feet for a combination lecture/laboratory instructional site (C-Lab).  These are MINIMUM area calculations, and students with additional needs, support workers, and exits will affect the overall calculation.  Please use the NFPA occupancy load calculation metrics located here for each room in your science department.

Engineering Controls for Occupancy Load

*Most science classroom instructional spaces do NOT have laboratory facilities, furniture, master control switches, 1:1 air exchange systems, and other science equipment.  Classifying a science lab instructional space as a ‘science classroom’ does not change the occupancy load when the room is used for conducting or performing science activities.*

NFPA-45 (National Fire Protection Association, Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals [NFPA-45 2019]) defines a laboratory as “an enclosed space used for experiments or tests.”  Academic K–12 science/STEM laboratories have occupancy loads. NFPA defines this (NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, National Fire Protection Association 2021) as “The total number of persons that might occupy a building or portion thereof at any one time.”

IBC Definition of Occupancy Load

The IBC defines Occupant Load as follows: “The number of persons for which the means of egress of a building or portion thereof is designed.” In most states, these standards are adopted by state legislatures and become law. Additional legal and quasi-professional occupancy standards have been established by state legislatures, state education departments, and professional organizations such as NSTA and NSELA. 

For educational science laboratories, the requirement is 50 square feet net per person or 4.6 square meters net per person minimum (NFPA 101 – 2021 – table 7.3.1.2 – Shops, laboratories, vocational rooms, pg. 101-83).  Generally, a science classroom instructional space has an NFPA occupancy load limitation of 20 square feet net per person or 1.0 square meters.  Both fire and building legal standards, like occupancy load codes, are designed to establish and maintain safer teaching/learning experiences in science/STEM instructional spaces.

The National Science Education Leadership Association or NSELA challenges science supervisors and curriculum directors to help meet legal aspects for formal academic science/STEM instructional spaces (primarily secondary levels) and appropriate instructional space equipment for science/STEM activities (primarily elementary level).

Duty of Care Required for Occupancy Load

We must address the “Duty or Standard of Care” required for each student by science/STEM teachers acting as a reasonable person to make instructional spaces safer. There is acknowledgment of the limitations of insurance in denying coverage for reckless and intentional acts by science/STEM 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 instructional space 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 instructional space increases the likelihood of accidents.
  3. A higher pupil/teacher ratio over the 24-student maximum professional standard constitutes a threat to science/STEM instructional space safety based on current research.
  4. Exceeded occupancy loads challenge a teacher to safely handle, transport, and use hazardous instructional space chemicals and equipment, thereby creating an unsafe working environment.
  5. Occupancy load mismanagement can also increase classroom management issues, which in turn contribute to unsafe conditions.

Research and Potential Liability Regarding Occupancy Load

A 2020 national research study, Safer Engineering, and CTE Instruction: A National STEM Education Imperative, by Drs. Tyler Love and Kenneth Roy (Love and Roy 2022)—revealed serious safety issues related to PK–12 Technology/Engineering and STEM facilities and instructional practices. 57% of study participants indicated their largest class had 25 or more students enrolled. However, only 26% of participants indicated they had a facility large enough (greater than 1,250 square feet) to host 25 or more students.

This mismatch between enrollment and facility net square footage creates a potential legal and safety issue in the event of an emergency. This is extremely concerning, given that results from previous research studies found a significant increase in school lab accidents as square footage dropped below 60 square feet per occupant, and enrollments in lab-based courses increased to 24 students or more per one instructor (Stephenson et al. 2003; West and Kennedy 2014).

Although a facility may have enough square footage to allow for hosting more than 24 students and 1 teacher as occupants, better professional safety practices clearly advise against this. When a single instructor is tasked with supervising more than 24 students involved in science/STEM instructional spaces/maker space activities, there is a significantly greater chance of an accident occurring.

General Rules for Overcrowding & Occupancy Load

Based on the research findings, Love and Roy (2022) strongly recommended that school districts, administrators, district safety officers, school counselors, STEM educators, and CTE (career and technical education) teachers collaborate to closely reexamine their class occupancy load guidelines to ensure no more than 24 students per instructor are enrolled in science/STEM, maker space, or CTE lab-based classes.

How to Address Overcrowding Safety Concerns in Instructional Spaces

According to Dr. Ken Roy and Dr. Tyler Love, the following actions are recommended to assist science/STEM educators who have exceeded occupancy load and/or overcrowded instructional spaces (e.g., laboratories

Consider Stopping Hands-On Instruction

If you have more than 24 students in a science/STEM course and are the only instructor, or if you have more occupants than the net square footage allows (50 square feet per occupant minus any tables, equipment, or other objects that occupy floor space), you need to consider in earnest temporarily stopping any hands-on instructional space activities or demonstrations.

This is critical if you know or suspect after doing a potential safety hazard analysis and resulting health and safety risk assessment that these potentially unsafe activities do not meet legal safety standards and better professional safety practices. You are potentially not only putting yourself and your students at risk, but you also are potentially placing yourself and your administration in legal jeopardy should a safety incident occur.

Contact Appropriate Responsible Parties

Next, contact in writing the appropriate school system supervisor/administrator and/or other individual(s) responsible for safety (e.g., chemical hygiene officer or facilities safety officer, building administrator, curriculum director, school counselor). Explain your concerns about occupancy load and science/STEM instructional spaces relative to safely implementing the required curricular activities. Provide resources about occupancy load (e.g., NSTA Safety Blog post, Occupant Load Factor Table 7.3.1.2 from NFPA 101, NSTA’s Overcrowding in the Instructional Space white paper, the 2016 article by West, and the free 2022 research book by Love and Roy).

Contact Union Representative

If this approach is not effective in rectifying the health and safety science/STEM issues, contact your faculty union representative and get them involved. Schedule an additional meeting to discuss your concerns and the criteria for occupancy load described in the aforementioned resources (See Step 2 above).

Request Local Fire Marshal Participation

If the issue is still not addressed and resolved in Step 3, in writing, request that your school system have the local fire marshal come in and re-evaluate the room’s occupancy load and general fire safety regulations for science/STEM instructional spaces. You also might ask for an updated certificate of occupancy from the local fire marshal and/or building inspector.

Trust Your Instincts-Stay Safer

Repeat the previously mentioned steps as occupancy loads, course activities, and facility space change.  Above all, if you believe it is unsafe because of the noted safety factors, do not carry out any instructional space hands-on activities. If you believe that someone is harassing you as a result of these inquiries and telling you to carry out these activities as required by the formal curriculum, then consider securing legal counsel and share your concerns. Remember that the science/STEM instructional space teacher is the one who is the safety specialist and has the major legal responsibility under duty or standard of care to make sure the instructional space is safer for teaching and learning activities.

Final Thoughts on STEAM Occupancy Load

There is evidence from recently published research that overcrowding in science/STEM instructional spaces (e.g., laboratories) is correlated with increased accidents and injuries, which is why establishing and adhering to a policy of no more than 24 people in a Science/STEM instructional space (e.g., laboratory) is the safer decision from a legal, evidence-based and liability perspective. 

Teacher unions/federations with the OH&S departments in school systems should establish a firm policy surrounding the number of occupants allowed to be in science/STEM instructional spaces at any one time.  Base this decision on legal standards from the NFPA and support from NSTA, NSELA, ITEEA, and other recognized professional associations working towards providing hands-on experiences for students in a safer manner within the walls of the science/STEM instructional spaces. 

Do not underestimate the impact that using this occupancy load methodology will have on your risk management practices and reduction of safety hazards and resulting risks, thereby reducing shared liability in case of an accident.  There is statistical evidence to limit science classes to 24 students or less based on adequate supervision and safety concerns.  Staying safer in the science/STEM instructional space is a combined effort and the foundation of future innovation. Make safer choices and limit the number of people in your science/STEM instructional spaces. 

References Used

Subscribe to edCircuit to stay up to date on all of our shows, podcasts, news, and thought leadership articles.

6 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinWhatsappCopy LinkEmail
People inside room
Discovery EducationK-12K-12 TeachersSTEM and STEAM Education

Scientific Learning: Phenomena and Questions

by Ted Willard
written by Ted Willard 5 minutes read

Look around! Phenomena—observable events in the universe—are happening all around you. Some phenomena happen at massive scales, such as the collision of two galaxies. Others happen at microscopic scales, such as photosynthesis inside a plant’s cell. Some are spectacular, such as a bolt of lightning hitting a tree, while others are mundane, such as how a ball bounces on the floor when it rolls off a table. But regardless of how spectacular or mundane a phenomenon may seem, phenomena are central to science and scientific learning. 

At the heart of science is the quest to understand, explain, and predict phenomena. Students observe phenomena and ask questions about them. They carry out investigations and analyze data about phenomena. They construct explanations and models about phenomena and make predictions.

Making Phenomena Part of Scientific Learning

Since phenomena are so central to science, they should be equally central to science education. But all too frequently, phenomena have not been used effectively in science classrooms. In traditional instruction, teachers and textbooks often tell students science ideas and then have them consider a phenomenon. They do not provide students with any reason to learn. For instance, when learning about gravity and other forces, a teacher could tell students about the force of gravity and the force of air resistance and then explain to students that the reason a feather floats to the ground is that the pull of gravity on the feather is countered by the force of air resistance on the feather.

While this might at first seem like an effective approach, it often has had some negative consequences because it hands students answers before they have asked any questions. Thus, students really do not have an intrinsic reason to deeply learn scientific ideas. Instead, they frequently learn to play the “game” of school, where they figure out what to say or do to get a good grade but retain little actual knowledge. Or they disengage because they have little reason to care. There are decades of evidence that this approach has not worked.

Developing Strategies

In recent years, much more effective strategies have been developed. The key is a shift from having students focus on just learning science ideas to figuring out how or why a phenomenon takes place. This leads students to ask their own questions about the phenomenon and then taps into their curiosity to give them a reason to develop a deep understanding of the scientific ideas. As long as students consider the phenomenon relevant, the process of making sense of the phenomenon can drive student learning. In addition, the last decade has also shown an increased use of educational technology in the classroom, from something as simple as an engaging video to elaborate interactives and other high-quality digital content.

So now consider a different approach to learning about gravity—one that starts with a phenomenon of the feather falling and then lets students take the lead in figuring it out. Students could be shown a feather, and a steel block dropped two times in a chamber. In the first instance, there is air in the chamber, and the block falls quickly while the feather slowly floats to the bottom of the chamber. However, in the second instance, the air has been pumped out of the chamber, and this time, both objects fall quickly to the bottom of the chamber.

Students are asked to make observations and ask questions, just the way a scientist would. They now wonder why the feather fell so quickly in one case and not the other. Rather than the teacher just telling the students why it happened, students now need to figure it out for themselves.

The Role Questions Play

It is important to notice the role that questions play in this process. Ordinarily, we think of questions as something teachers ask students. But in the scenario described above, students are the ones producing the questions. Thus, the process is student-centered. In addition, asking questions about phenomena is one of the primary activities of scientists. So, when students do this, they are learning about the universe in the same way that scientists do.

With their questions in hand, students now have a reason to plan and carry out investigations of how gravity pulls on objects and how objects move when forces are applied to them. Digital resources are a tremendous tool for these types of explorations. Not every classroom has a vacuum chamber to conduct this experiment, but students can observe a video of the feather falling. Other digital tools can allow students to conduct virtual interactive investigations where forces can be easier to visualize with vectors superimposed on diagrams.

These investigations will produce data that needs to be organized and interpreted. Students may also analyze information about force and motion. Phenomena play a key role here, too, as they provide evidence that students can answer their questions and justify their explanations. Here too, digital tools can facilitate the process of collecting and making sense of the evidence.

This work will lead students to construct their own explanation for why the feather fell slowly when there was air in the chamber and quickly when there was no air. And as they construct that explanation, they will develop their own understanding of the laws of gravity and of motion. But this understanding will be much more meaningful to them because they will have worked for it.

Creating Lightbulb Moments in Scientific Learning

One of the greatest experiences for a scientist or an engineer is that moment when the light bulb goes off over their heads as they figure something out. By putting phenomena front and center during instruction and letting students ask their own questions and develop their own explanations of those phenomena, we give them the opportunity to have those “lightbulb” moments. Consider the wonder that young children have about the world. The use of phenomena and questions in the science classroom is the key to fostering that sense of wonder throughout students’ entire K-12 experience.

Stay Connected with Scientific Learning on edCircuit

7 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinWhatsappCopy LinkEmail
Children in a computer lab learning and collaborating on projects together
HiddenSTEM and STEAM EducationK-12

3 Keys to Creativity and Computer Science

by Pronita Mehrotra
written by Pronita Mehrotra 5 minutes read

How can we combine creativity and computer science to create positive education outcomes? The demand for computer science and information technology graduates is expected to grow by 14.6% over the next decade, much faster than any other area. While the number of computer science graduates is increasing, it is still insufficient to meet the growing demand for STEM-related jobs. Technical jobs also pay significantly more than other careers, yet many students shy away from STEM fields.  

So, how do we encourage more students to pursue computer science which leads to both a lucrative and a fulfilling career? Here are three strategies to address challenges that students face in technical areas. 

Change Perceptions of Computer Science

One of the barriers to learning computer science is the perception that not everyone can become good at it. Parents, educators, and others can inadvertently reinforce this stereotype when they use phrases like “not a technical person.” Much like the mindset about math, which plays a key role in the poor performance among US students, limiting beliefs about computer science creates a hesitancy towards the subject. When the adults in a child’s life feel traumatized by subjects like math or computer science, it’s not surprising that the child develops a fear of approaching that subject. 

The reality is that there is no “math brain” or a “computer science brain.” Most people can learn these subjects once they get over their mental block and put in the effort to learn. Neuroscience research shows that the human brain is quite malleable and grows when you learn a new skill. MRI scans of students doing math show that when students make a mistake, a synapse fires even when they are unaware they made a mistake. As a result, the brain grows when students struggle with a concept.  

Changing Mindsets on Creativity and Computer Science

The good news, however, is that mindsets can be changed. A growth mindset, a concept pioneered by Stanford psychologist, Carol Dweck, is one approach to help students shift their mindset towards a difficult subject. Helping students recognize that the process of learning any skill will feel uncomfortable as their brain starts to grow and reconfigure itself to become good at the new skill.  

Beyond building growth mindsets, educators need to combat the harmful stereotype that computer science is not “cool” or for “nerds.” This is where framing computer science as a way to exercise creativity is useful. Mitchel Resnick, Professor at MIT and creator of Scratch, believes we need to view computers more as finger paint instead of as some esoteric technology.

Mitchel explains, “…until we start to think of computers more like finger paint and less like television, computers will not live up to their full potential.” Just like finger paints and unlike televisions, computers can be used for designing and creating things. Encouraging students to use computers in different ways to solve problems or create new things can shape their attitudes in a more positive direction. 

Build Thinking Skills Early To Increase Accessibility to Creativity and Computer Science

STEM fields face a high attrition rate (~50%) as many students switch their major part-way through. When students’ first exposure to a programming language is in college, they find the coursework more challenging and are more likely to drop out of the course. One way to combat this problem is to build computational thinking skills early on. Computational thinking is an approach to formulating problems in a way that computers could be used to solve them. 

Building computational thinking skills is not hard and doesn’t necessarily need expensive resources like computers and software for all students. For example, the Computer Science Unplugged project uses games and activities to expose children to thinking styles expected of a computer scientist, all done without using computers.

Not only do students learn concepts, but the group games also build social connections and make the whole experience more enjoyable. In another example, students create an interactive play while learning programming fundamentals (like sequential logic, conditionals, or flowcharts) along with creative thinking (associational and analogical thinking) and storytelling. The advantage of using an unplugged approach is that students can be introduced to useful computer science concepts at a younger age without making it overwhelming for them. 

Add Project Based Learning

Projects are another way to make learning more engaging and combat the negative stereotypes students might hold simultaneously. When researchers at a university in Ohio redesigned their computer science classes to encourage more creative and hands-on learning, they found that in addition to an improvement in the quality of student work, the three-year retention rate increased by 34%! This is especially important for women, who typically view computer science courses “to be overly technical, with little room for individual creativity.” 

By encouraging students to apply the concepts they are learning towards a project of their own choosing, educators can create an environment that students personally find meaningful. It also helps students view computer science as another tool that they can use to solve problems that they encounter. 

Providing Unique Learning Experiences

Technology has become an integral part of our lives, and most work now requires some level of technical competence. The demand for STEM, especially CS, will only accelerate as we move further into the 21st century. To encourage more students to pursue computer science, parents and educators need to pay attention to limiting mindsets and provide creative opportunities to learn core thinking skills and projects to apply their knowledge in real-world scenarios. 

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinWhatsappCopy LinkEmail
A classroom chalkboard covered in handwritten words in colored chalk, with the large words LEARN and CLASSROOM in the center, soft daylight
EducatorsAdministratorsProfessional DevelopmentScience and Lab SafetyTrade Schools and Career EducationSTEM and STEAM EducationK-12School Safety

Safety Training in STEM and CTE Programs a Necessity

by Science Safety
written by Science Safety 16 minutes read
This entry is part 5 of 12 in the series Science Safety

Safety Training in STEM and CTE, Why is it necessary? Why you should do it, and how often?

This is a common question from school districts, school building administrators, and teachers since there is some variation in the answer depending on the jurisdiction that you are in (certain states have different interpretations and regulations) and, ultimately, the frequency of safety training is determined by the employer (school district).

As you can imagine, this can be frustrating and difficult for stakeholders in educational systems to understand and schedule to be considered ‘compliant’ with federal, state, and local requirements. Let us investigate the most referenced safety standards that apply to science, STEM, and CTE teachers (and students) and their supervisors at the school and district levels. 

As a benchmark indicator, according to Dr. Roy and Dr. Love in their recently published ‘What the Data Tells Us’ research, 35% of Science, STEM, and CTE teachers have NEVER had formalized safety training (either during their preservice or initial hiring at the school district)  which is a frightening and preventable statistic with legal implications for teachers, principals, and superintendents in case of an accident or an injury to a staff member or a student.   

Research On Safety Training

One of the most interesting key findings from the 2021 Dr. Roy and Dr. Love study on safety in schools was that ‘There was an identifiable lack of safety training, as only 54% of participants reported receiving such training during undergraduate technical and teaching methods courses. This not only puts students at a higher risk of an accident but also does so for the teacher! 

Teacher preparation programs and mentor teachers should ensure safety is a core focus for all preservice teachers. Undergraduate and Faculty of Education programs should have a practical laboratory safety training component as a requisite criterion or condition of graduation where students are expected to be able to demonstrate competency and understanding of fundamental laboratory safety procedures and hazard identification coupled with risk assessment and exposure to legal, professional safety standards including the OSHA Laboratory Standard and the National Fire Protection Act (NFPA) at a minimum due to the inherent risks found in the science laboratories and CTE laboratories in schools across the land.   

Key Findings On Occupational Science Training

Another key finding from Drs. Roy and Love were that ‘there was also an identifiable lack of safety training provided by school districts. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires employers (school districts) to train employees (teachers) upon initial hiring, anytime thereafter when a new hazard is present (e.g., new equipment, new chemical, etc.), and when there is a new job assignment in the workplace (STEM or CTE lab). 

Further research featuring statistical analyses from the data in this study revealed that a lack of safety training, along with other factors, was significantly associated with increased accident rates. This is a preventable statistic with the proper grade and discipline-specific safety training provided at least annually to educators in science, STEM, and CTE programs. This is both a powerful and frightening fact when considering that there is no consistency in safety training and these teachers are the same people responsible for modeling proper laboratory procedures for students in the laboratory. Makes you think about the multiple failures in existing safety training strategies in school districts, doesn’t it?   

A Legal Perspective on Safety Training for Educators

K12 science laboratories are often perceived as ‘dangerous’ or ‘unsafe’ places for teaching and learning due to the inherent hazards and risks associated with a combination of biological, chemical, and physical hazards in these academic laboratories. OSHA recognized the need for a series of legal standards specifically for science laboratories and in 1990 (over 30 years ago) created what is collectively known as the ‘Laboratory Standard’ (29 CFR 1910.1450), which requires all employees working in laboratory settings (including special education teachers and paraprofessionals) to undergo safety training before they enter the lab.

This is to ensure employees are aware of and know how to work with chemical hazards in the work area. This is important – since there is no mention of physical or biological hazards mentioned in the regulation referenced, only ‘chemical’ hazards. The potential physical and health hazards associated with chemicals are the baseline for OSHA 1910.1450 and the requirement for a Chemical Hygiene Plan. The CHP must be tailored to reflect the specific chemical hazards present in the laboratory where it is to be used.

The OSHA Lab Standard clearly states that ‘Laboratory personnel must receive training regarding the Laboratory standard, the CHP, and other laboratory safety practices, including exposure detection, physical and health hazards associated with chemicals, and protective measures.’

Laboratory Safety Information Requirements

As responsible educators know, under CFR 29 OSHA 1910.1450, safety training must occur during the initial work assignment and prior to assignments involving new chemical exposure situations. All workers in the laboratory must be provided with access to relevant safety information and training that includes, at a minimum, the following criteria:

  1. Access to the OSHA Laboratory Standard and associated appendices
  2. Access to the Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP), otherwise referred to as an Environmental Hygiene Plan in non-OSHA jurisdictions
  3. Access to the Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) in case of potential exposure to OSHA-regulated hazardous substances
  4. Access to Threshold Exposure Limits (TEL) for chemicals in the laboratory inventory
  5. Review of potential chemical exposure health and physical symptoms and signs awareness
  6. Access to Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and associated safer handling and responsible chemical management practices involving storage, dispensing, disposal, and waste management.

Refresher On Safety Training

Additionally, OSHA mandates that the school district (employer) provide the following safety training topics initially and as part of the ongoing and ‘refresher’ safety training to all employees with access to the laboratory or chemical storeroom:

  1. Monitoring and methodology are used to detect the accidental release of a hazardous or potentially hazardous chemical. This will include assessing odors, precipitate, and physical observations of chemicals and their storage system.
  2. Identify the potential chemical hazards (physical and health hazards) for chemicals found in the inventory on-site.
  3. A hierarchy of controls and measures is used to mitigate these chemical risks, including administrative controls, engineering controls, PPE, substitution, and elimination, as well as the laboratory’s standard operating procedures and emergency procedures.
  4. Access to the Chemical Hygiene Plan and specific sections that apply to the role and responsibilities associated with the program being instructed.
  5. Retraining and assessment when required (frequency to be determined by the employer)

Ensuring Your Chemical Hygiene Plan

The employer is required to review the chemical hygiene plan (CHP) or environmental hygiene plan (EHP) annually and make edits and enhancements. It is a responsible practice to provide these updates and some form of safety training to fellow educators in the form of a ‘safety refresher’ training on the contents of the CHP.

Certain jurisdictions require that at science and STEM department monthly meetings that a portion of the time is allocated to safer practices and conversations of legal and professional safety practices that apply to the department and formal documentation for these training sessions. 

Many factors contribute to the safety training schedule, which will be unique to each school and district, yet the requirement for progressive, ongoing relevant safety training exists. Ensure that all department members acknowledge the safety training content being discussed as a mechanism to reduce legal liability and potential legal entanglement.

Key Elements of Safety Training for Educators

According to the official NSTA position paper on ‘Safety and School Science Instruction,’ there are some key elements to be aware of regarding safety training in these program areas. Comprehensive safety programs are important tools in reducing injury during science activities.

School district leaders are responsible for developing and adopting a comprehensive safety program that includes safety policies and procedures that are consistent with better professional practices and legal safety standards.

NSTA recommends school districts develop safety programs based on the following guidelines:

  • Safety programs should be consistent with the Duty of Care (NSTA Safety Advisory Board 2014a) as applied to engineering controls (e.g., fume hoods, fire extinguishers, etc.), administrative procedures (e.g., chemical management policies and emergency procedures), and personal protective equipment (safety goggles, gloves, etc.).
  • Safety programs should include a Chemical Hygiene Plan to properly manage hazardous chemical and biological materials (e.g., appropriate selection, storage, inventory, use, and disposal).
    • Program procedures should meet or exceed existing standards adopted from federal government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); professional material standards associations, such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), International Code Council (ICC), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI); professional teacher associations, such as NSTA, the National Science Education Leadership Association (NSELA), and the American Chemical Society (ACS); and appropriate state and local agencies.
  • All school employees, independent contractors, and emergency personnel should have direct access to Safety Data Sheets (SDS) or other similar updated guidelines for all hazardous chemicals used in instruction. SDS set forth guidelines for the safer handling and use of chemicals. OSHA publishes these guidelines and has adopted a new system titled the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). 
  • School districts should designate one or more chemical hygiene officers or someone equivalent who has the knowledge and training to monitor and oversee the implementation of a Chemical Hygiene Plan. The NSTA encourages all school districts, including those not covered under OSHA’s Laboratory Standard (OSHA 1990), to comply with this laboratory standard for safer working and learning environments for teachers and students.
  • School district officials, such as principals, assistant principals, science supervisors, superintendents, and board of education members, must share the responsibility of establishing, promoting, maintaining, and updating safety programs to include changes in legal safety standards and better professional practices.
  • School district officials should inform teachers of the nature and limits of applicable professional liability and tort insurance held by the school district (NSTA 2007a).

Safety training is essential to ensure that science activities are conducted in the safest manner possible. NSTA recommends the following actions for ongoing science and STEM educator safety training programs:

  • All teachers and others responsible for the safety of students and other personnel should receive necessary, appropriate, and ongoing training related to the operation of the engineering controls, personal protective equipment, safety procedures, and all components of the safety plan.
  • School districts, as employers, have the legal responsibility to conduct districtwide science safety training for all K–12 teachers of science upon their initial assignments to classrooms, labs, or storerooms where hazardous chemicals are present and prior to assignments involving new exposure situations.
    • In addition, training should occur annually so teachers can review, discuss, and update the safety program, share experiences and better professional practices, and receive legal updates and other information related to science instruction and safety.
  • All science teachers should have the opportunity to participate in the design and implementation of safety training programs that meet the goals outlined in the school district’s overall safety program, including the Chemical Hygiene Plan.
  • Safety training programs should cover the legal duty or standard of care owed by teachers to students (NSTA 2007b) and include state safety regulations and all school board policies applicable to the science classroom.
  • Safety training programs should include ways to reduce the potential risk of injury from exposure to bloodborne pathogens and other potentially infectious materials (OPIM) (OSHA 1992).
  • Safety training should include strategies for accommodating students with academic, remedial, or physical needs and English Language Learners.
  • Safety training programs should help teachers learn how to understand and apply the contents of SDS or other guidelines in preparation for hazardous chemical use.

Safer Actions for Educators

Knowing that there is a legal requirement for relevant safety training in K12 schools and across school districts in the USA, according to Dr. Ken Roy, there are some actions that can be taken to increase the level of ‘safety awareness’ about appropriate (grade and age as well as subject-specific) safety training. 

The following is a brief list of action items that should be shared with employers to protect teachers and students in the academic science laboratory. The list is based on both legal standards and better professional safety practices. It is a starting point for improved biological, chemical and physical hazards notification/awareness, understanding, action, and protection. The comprehensive list includes the following:

Chemical Hazards (toxins, corrosives, flammables, and reactives):

  1. Require an active inventory of all hazardous substances used in the lab and directly accessible SDS for each one.
  2. Require a hazard communication program addressing the use of SDSs, proper labeling, storage, use, disposal, and employee training.
  3. Require labeling on all containers for hazardous substances with pictograms, a signal word, hazard and precautionary statements, the product identifier, and supplier identification. Hazardous substances transferred to another container must have a limited amount of information when used more than one shift or out of the originator’s possession during the shift.
  • This label must contain two key pieces of information: the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) in the container (e.g., chemical name) and the hazards present. It is a responsible practice to have the GHS-compliant label on the container (vessel) at all times.

       4. Require employee training on hazardous substances, including:

    • Explanation of SDS – what it is and how to use it.
    • Employee’s “right to understand!”
    • Location of biological, chemical, and physical health hazards in specific work areas and protective measures to be used.
    • Details of communication program, including labeling system, inventory system, and SDSs.
    • Access and review of a communication program for hazardous substances.

 Biological Hazards (microbes, animals, plants, and genetically modified agents):

  1. Require a written exposure control plan for occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens and other potentially infectious materials (OPIMs).
  2. Require employee training for Biological hazards resulting from Bloodborne pathogens, including:
    • Access and review of the plan.
    • Explanation of epidemiology and symptoms of Bloodborne diseases.
    • Explanation of the modes of transmission of Bloodborne Pathogens.
    • Explanation of appropriate methods for recognizing tasks and the other activities that may involve exposure to blood and OPIMs.
    • Explanation of use and limitations of methods that will prevent or reduce exposure, including engineering controls, standard operating procedures, and Personal Protective Equipment or PPE.
    • Information on types, proper use, location, removal, handling, decontamination, and disposal of PPE.
    • How to select appropriate PPE.
    • Specific information on Hepatitis B and vaccines is available.
    • Information and protocol to follow in case of an emergency involving blood or OPIMs.
    • Protocol to follow for an exposure incident.
    • Explanation of signs, labels, and color-coding.
    • How to obtain information on types, selection, proper use, location, removal handling, decontamination, and disposal of PPE.
    • Who to contact during an emergency.
    • Awareness of biological hazards in working with microbes, animals, plants, and genetically modified agents.

Physical Hazards (heating devices, noise, projectiles, fire, cold, electrical, etc.):

  1. Require employee training for physical hazards.
  2. Appropriate use of personal protective equipment.
  3. Awareness of electrical hazards – fire and shock.
  4. Awareness of compressed gases – explosion, projectiles, flammables.
  5. Awareness of mechanical hazards – moving machinery, projectiles, springs.
  6. Awareness of radiation hazards – ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
  7. Awareness of working with thermal hazards (heat sources).
  8. Appropriate machine guarding on power tools.

The noted suggestion list is a start to help raise the level of awareness and understanding on the part of both the employer and the employee relative to working with biological, chemical, and physical hazards in the academic laboratory. Science education is meant to be fun and engaging– but also safer by having a well-informed school administrator, science faculty, and student body. 

Additional Considerations For Safety Training

As a reminder, school districts, as employers, have the legal responsibility to conduct districtwide science safety training for all K–12 teachers of science upon their initial assignments to classrooms, labs, or storerooms where hazardous chemicals are present and prior to assignments involving new exposure situations. In addition, progressive training should occur annually so teachers can review, discuss, and update the safety program, share experiences and better professional practices, and receive legal updates and other information related to science / STEM instruction and safety.

So there is the answer to the frequency of safety training. ANNUAL safety training is the safer choice and the most practical for teachers, CHOs, school building administrators, and other staff members. By having a current, compliant, cost-effective, consistent, and comprehensive safety training and risk management system in place, you can reduce the risks and provide a safer and multi-dimensional hands-on experience for your students. This safer learning environment will provide a platform for students to explore the world around them and select a future trajectory based on the innate curiosity found within them, rooted in these safer learning experiences originating in the science laboratory. 

Remember that there is no ‘fine line’ between safe and unsafe, therefore having appropriate, relevant, annual (ongoing) safety training is a necessary component of your instructional program from a legal and professional perspective for school principals, department heads, teachers, and all other stakeholders in the educational ecosystem.  

Summary Thoughts on Current Safety Training  Practices

One of the most interesting key findings from the 2021 Dr. Roy and Dr. Love study on safety in schools was that ‘There was an identifiable lack of safety training, as only 54% of participants reported receiving such training during undergraduate technical and teaching methods courses. This not only puts students at a higher risk of an accident but also does so for the teacher! Teacher preparation programs and mentor teachers should ensure safety is a core focus for all preservice teachers.

There was also an identifiable lack of safety training provided by school districts.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires employers (school districts) to train employees (teachers) upon initial hiring, anytime thereafter when a new hazard is present (e.g., new equipment, new chemical, etc.), and when there is a new job assignment in the workplace (STEM or CTE lab).

Further research featuring statistical analyses from the data in this study revealed that a lack of safety training, along with other factors, was significantly associated with increased accident rates. 

This is a preventable statistic with the proper grade and discipline-specific safety training provided at least annually to educators in science, STEM, and CTE programs.

Ensure that your risk management program includes ANNUAL safety training for your schools’ science, STEM, and CTE teachers. You have a responsibility under your’ duty of care obligations to provide safer learning and teaching environments and regulatory and legal obligations under OSHA, NFPA, and other professional standards to do the same. It is a priority to reduce liability through hazard and risk mitigation in schools, and proper safety training and awareness is the best method to achieve this objective.       

Science Safety
‘Safety First. Accidents Last.’

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinWhatsappCopy LinkEmail
Laboratory beakers and flasks filled with bright blue, orange and red liquids on a white bench against a black background, crisp studio light
K-12 TeachersAdministratorsScience and Lab SafetyProfessional DevelopmentK-12

The Importance of Chemical Hygiene Plans in School Districts

by Science Safety
written by Science Safety 12 minutes read
This entry is part 4 of 12 in the series Science Safety

Why The Importance of Chemical Hygiene Plans in School Districts? I am often surprised by the lack of awareness in safety concerns across elementary, middle, and high school science and STEM programs regarding the cavalier attitude towards chemicals and the special considerations necessary for safety compliance.  This is a result of many false assumptions, and I am not the first, nor will I be the last safety advocate to bring some attention to this growing concern in our school science chemical storerooms.  According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, a common misconception among administrators and faculty members is that these type of accidents (e.g., eye injuries, lacerations, amputations, and other permanent injuries resulting from STEM education classroom and laboratory activities) will not happen to them and will not happen at their school.

The recent chemistry accident involving methanol occurred at Dinwiddie High School in October 2022, resulted in tragedy for the teacher, students, and the school district.  There was an under-appreciation of the hazards associated with this specific chemical (methanol) and multiple failures from a duty of care perspective based on the details provided thus far.  This was a preventable accident that could have been avoided, and the Chemical Hygiene Officer with a recent and robust Chemical Hygiene Plan could have provided the safety awareness and safety education and training necessary to perform a hazard analysis prior to the activity.   Some superintendents are now asking about their own chemical hygiene plans for their schools as a result of this event in Virginia.  Having increased awareness of the documentation and required training and annual filing requirements is beneficial to everyone in the school district ecosystem.

Schools across the country are expected to have a Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP) in place in OSHA governed states, and an Environmental Hygiene Plan (EHP) in place in non-OSHA governed states.  These documents are very important and are a mandated regulatory requirement for the employer (school district) to manage, review, edit, and are created as a mechanism to communicate chemical hygiene protocols specifically for the schools in each jurisdiction, including standard operating procedures, emergency management protocols, and chemical waste management to name a handful of the requisite functions of this important document.

According to the National Science Teaching Association, the National Science Education Leadership Association, The Council of State Science Supervisors, the American Chemical Society, OSHA and NIOSH, ‘Academic science laboratories can be unsafe places for teaching and learning due to risks associated with biological, chemical, and physical hazards’.  If you have ever been in a science department with apparatus, equipment, chemicals related materials, you will agree with this statement.  This applies to schools offering hands-on, comprehensive K-12 science programs since there are physical laboratory facilities and hazardous chemicals on-site.  According to current case law and a thorough understanding of risk management protocols in school districts, we know that there are legal liability concerns associated with teaching science and STEM, especially when negligence or recklessness is involved.  This is a separate and important conversation as it relates to the overall chemical hygiene program in each jurisdiction.   

What you need to know about Chemical Hygiene Plans

The OSHA Laboratory Standard (CFR 1910.1945) requires the development and implementation of a formal, written, and employee-accessible program, referred to as a Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP). This plan, as defined by OSHA, must be “capable of protecting employees from health hazards associated with hazardous chemicals used in the laboratory.”  Here is some important background information for the school district Directors of Education, Superintendents, and Chemical Hygiene Officers which is applicable to their role and responsibility for occupational health and safety.  The OSHA Laboratory Standard (29 CFR 1910.1450) requires that all school district employees working in laboratory settings (including special education teachers and paraprofessionals) undergo safety training before they enter the lab. This is to ensure employees are made aware of the hazards and how to effectively work safely with the chemicals and their hazards in the science department. 

According to the OSHA Lab Standard, this formalized safety training must occur when new teachers are hired or when teachers are given a new assignment (new subject area or grade level) when these new environments involve the use of chemicals or potentially exposure to chemical hazards during the regular course of their job function.  The law is clear: All employees must be provided with current and relevant information and training specifically related to the physical and health hazards of chemicals present in their laboratory.  This means that when teachers are hired, they should be trained in safety based on legal, safer, professional standards that are grade-level and subject-specific.  So, does that mean that if you were trained ten years ago, that you are considered ‘safety trained and compliant’?  Many employers (school districts) under the OSHA Lab Standard can determine a schedule or frequency for safety training updates or ‘refresher course training’ in consultations with their Chemical Hygiene Officer and the Legal or Risk Management Officer at the school district.  Many school districts have annual teacher compliance training and require an additional specific science or STEM safety training on a recurring annual ‘safety refresher’ course for teachers to keep them updated on safety practices and procedures.  This is a commonly used better professional practice in science and STEM education nationally and a federally mandated OSHA requirement for training.

With regard to the expectations and legal implications for newly hired teachers and those who have started a new position or teaching assignment, the employer (school district) has a duty to firstly inform workers of the following safety items:

  • the content of the OSHA Laboratory standard and its appendices (the full text must be made available);
    • the location and availability of the Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP); (Environmental Hygiene Plan in non-OSHA governed states)
    • provide employees with information pertaining to permissible exposure limits (PELs) for OSHA-regulated substances or recommended exposure
    • provide employees with the acceptable levels for other hazardous chemicals where there is no applicable standard;
    • provide employees with background information regarding signs and symptoms associated with exposure to hazardous chemicals in the laboratory;
    • the location and availability of reference materials on the hazards, safe handling, storage and disposal of hazardous chemicals in the laboratory, including safety data sheets.

Secondly, OSHA requires the employer provide the following safety training topics specific to the safer handling of chemicals in the science department:

  • methods and observations used to detect the presence or release of a hazardous chemical (e.g., employer monitoring, continuous monitoring devices, and familiarity with the appearance and odor of the chemicals);
    • the physical and health hazards of chemicals in the laboratory work area;
    • the measures that workers can take to protect themselves from these hazards, including protective equipment, appropriate work practices, and emergency procedures;
    • applicable details of the employer’s written CHP; and
    • retraining, if necessary.

Here is the on-going legal requirement under the Lab Standard as it applies to the school district in order to be compliant with regulatory expectations. The employer (school district) is required to evaluate the effectiveness of the CHP annually and update it as necessary. It would be prudent to also do refresher training on the CHP for employees using the same schedule. An alternative is to provide additional training each month at department meetings.  However, as the NSTA makes known that you need to be aware that in certain state jurisdictions, public employers are not covered under OSHA and may not have to comply with this standard.  However, better professional practice advocates the lab standard’s components in all public and private school science labs; e.g. chemical hygiene officer, chemical training, etc.  Based on the accidents and injuries that are still occurring in our school science and STEM departments, it is a prudent practice to apply these stringent safer practices even if there is no legal requirement, seeing that every person in a school district is directly or indirectly accountable for maintaining a safe learning and teaching environment.   

Inconsistency is a real problem for school districts 

From my experiences working with small, moderate, and larger school districts across the country, there is one word that can be used to encapsulate the implementation of the chemical hygiene plan.  Inconsistency.  I am using this word based on the differing levels of understanding and appreciation for the innate value of a chemical hygiene plan as it relates to increasing the level of safety awareness across the school district.  While many superintendents and directors of education can appreciate the legal aspects of the CHP, and ideally having a designated Chemical Hygiene Officer manage the safety program for science and STEM programs in schools, yet many administrators do not understand the true legal aspects of this critically important document.  Let me be clear: If there is not a designated Chemical Hygiene Officer in your school district, that responsibility automatically becomes the responsibility of the superintendent, regardless of their education, experience, training or exposure to chemical hygiene practices and procedures.  This is real.  And frightening.  And makes the Superintendent legally liable and accountable. This illustrates one of the multiple reasons that there is a culture of inconsistency across the nation when looking at the chemical hygiene plan and its management for the teachers and staff in the school district.  Inconsistency breeds accidents and injuries.

Chemical Hygiene Officer Accountability

School districts need to have a Chemical Hygiene Plan in place with all the previously mentioned criteria and components, and the site-specific standard operating procedures for the unique equipment, apparatus, materials, and chemicals in the schools located in each local region.  This unique localized CHP is connected to the EPA and local municipal or county fire marshal guidance and wastewater pollution control thresholds for safer disposal practices for chemical wastes generated on-site in school buildings.  Through the knowledge, interpretation and experience of the Chemical Hygiene Officer, the school district can implement the CHP as part of the legal, safer, and professional standards and connect this to their overall risk management program covering activities involving chemicals in school laboratories.  Remember that non-OSHA states are governed by a similar Environmental Hygiene Plan that accounts for chemical safety for products in school science departments.   

The responsibilities of this position require the District Chemical Hygiene Officer (CHO) to:

  • Develop and implement the Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP) and the safety program for the district, including professional development and safety training, reporting, and other functions noted here;
  • Ensure that employees have received appropriate safety training that is grade and discipline-specific to the courses being taught and has been properly documented for insurance and liability purposes;
  • Ensure that employees have access to the Chemical Hygiene Plan, SDS (safety data sheets) and other suitable reference materials in order to provide a safer teaching and learning environment;
  • Work with administrators and teachers to develop and implement the district approved safety program and make adjustments as necessary based on an abundance of safety and risk mitigation;
  • Monitor the procurement, use, and disposal of chemicals used in the schools’ science and STEM laboratory programs. This can include creation of a ‘banned’ or an ‘approved’ chemical listing;
  • Assure that inspections of equipment and space in the laboratory are performed when appropriate and that accurate records of OH&S physical inspections are maintained;
  • Provide technical assistance to schools and employees on the Chemical Hygiene Plan based on legal and professional standards found in OSHA, NFPA, NIOSH, and others; (see reference links below)
  • Assure that the Chemical Hygiene Plan is reviewed at least annually and revised as needed, so that it is always in compliance with current legal requirements and safer, professional standards-based practices;
  • Make decisions regarding requests to use chemicals identified as explosive, carcinogenic, mutagenic, highly toxic, or otherwise unsuitable for general school laboratories;
  • Determine the need for personal protective equipment beyond that specified for general laboratory use based on the activities being performed and ensuring that there is PPE for all individuals in the lab;
  • Implement appropriate training with regard to chemical hygiene for all district employees whose normal work locations include laboratory areas;
  • Provide regular, formal chemical hygiene and housekeeping inspections;
  • Provide regular, formal inspections on safety infrastructure including eye wash stations, drench showers, fume hoods, ventilation systems, fire prevention equipment, and PPE supplies;
  • Complete an annual physical inspection in each chemical store room and laboratory, prep area and facility in the science department and file this inspection document with OSHA before July 1 each year;
  • Coordinate requests for acquisition, use or disposal of chemicals identified as explosive, carcinogenic, mutagenic, highly toxic, or otherwise unsuitable for general school laboratories;

Next Steps for Superintendents, Supervisors and Chemical Hygiene Officers

Now that you understand the importance of the Chemical (Environmental) Hygiene Plan and the designated person in the school district to manage the implementation, safety training, document reviews and on-site annual inspections, and the additional necessary legal aspects of the CHP, you should ask these three questions:

  1. Is there a current CHP in the district?
  2. Who is the designated Chemical Hygiene Officer?
  3. How accountable do you feel for the chemical health and safety in your district?

The answers to these questions will help you determine what your next steps will be as you develop your risk management program and use the Chemical Hygiene Plan as the foundational component of the safety plan in the science and STEM programs in your district.  Please consult with your Science Supervisor, Chemical Hygiene Officer, School Science Department Heads, Facilities Directors, and professionals with a comprehensive understanding of chemical hygiene plans and the intent and impact these documents have on the overall safety program.  Many templates are available to help you develop a personalized CHP from trusted professional organizations or third-party vendors that can assist you to elevate the safety awareness and meet the regulatory compliance associated with the CHP or EHP in your area.  Bottom line is that ensuring that teachers have access to this annually reviewed, current, chemical safety document is extremely important to your risk mitigation and legal liability.    

Related reading

13 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinWhatsappCopy LinkEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts