First, build for safety!

Minimize the potential for litigation

The link between science facilities and the legal arena has a long and unfortunate history. The first line of defense against litigation for districts is quality construction. Architects, contractors, and schools need to build safe facilities, purchase sturdy furniture and install superior equipment. These steps have the added bonus of supporting excellent instruction. Proper facilities are the foundation for effective science learning and the first line of defense against litigation for science educators. Here are few of the principles that guide facility design and minimize litigation.

Reasonable Effort . A key word in litigation is "reasonable." Effort to provide a safe environment for the teacher and student is required. It is not necessary to use a "worst case scenario" for every design. For example, we wouldn't eliminate electrical outlets because a student could stick a piece of metal in one, but we would place them in appropriate locations, with appropriate circuit breakers, and avoid stray wires.

Research Base . It is important that planning teams and designers be well-informed about the research base regarding accidents. Newspaper reports often cite accidents in school classrooms, since the accident rate in schools is 10 to 50 times higher than in the chemical industry. Looking beyond the headlines research looks at the factors that link with accidents which include lack of adequate working space (crowding), teachers without adequate course work preparation, teachers with more than two preparations at the same time, poor school discipline and lack of safety measures and training.

Tort Law . A tort is a wrong or injury to a person or property with the standard of proof being the preponderance of evidence

Negligence is defined as conduct that falls below a standard of care established by law to protect others against an unreasonable risk of harm. Educators are expected to minimize risks, and make reasonable and good common sense decisions. There are three types of negligence:

Malfeasance is defined as doing that which should not have been done or the improper performance of a lawful act. Forcing an employee or student to assume an unnecessary risk, such as asking students to move chemicals from room to room, or requiring teachers to work in unventilated spaces, could be malfeasance. In a well disciplined Texas science classroom students were working quietly when one student bumped the elbow of the adjacent student who was holding a protractor. The point penetrated the eyelid of the student. The accident happened because students simply and literally did not have sufficient "elbow room" to work safely. The school built the laboratory too small initially and subsequently scheduled too many students in the small room.

Violating the Texas Hazard Communication Act (Haz Com Act) or circumventing the Fire Marshal's regulations could all be considered malfeasance. Similarly, litigation may result from poorly designed facilities that do not provide a safe working environment because of inadequate space, ventilation, or supervision of students, or because of the lack of personal protection such as eye washes, showers, or lack of separate chemical storage or alarm systems.

Nonfeasance is the failure to do what should be done. Inadequate facilities or lack of proper facilities could result in a finding of negligence. Mandating curriculum when facilities are inadequate may result in a finding of nonfeasance. A fourteen year old girl was burned badly while carrying alcohol to light burners in a classroom that was not equipped for science. The courts found the teacher negligent for providing inappropriate supervision and against the principal for scheduling the science class in a room with improper and inappropriate facilities. (Bush vs Oscada Area Schools, 1981)

In another case, a Texas chemistry teacher was working alone after school preparing chemicals for the next day's class. She was seriously injured when she dropped a bottle of concentrated sulfuric acid, then slipped in the acid and fell backwards onto a large piece of glass. In addition to the acid burns, she had a four-inch long and one-inch deep cut in her back. She called for help and a colleague carried her to the nearest shower in the girl's gym. There was no safety shower in the chemistry laboratory - a clear violation of all safety recommendations and common sense. The school did not make a reasonable effort to provide a safe working environment for the science teachers or students.

The potential for successful lawsuits increases when the district has the opportunity to design and build better facilities and fails to do so. No facility can be completely accident-proof. The key is best practice. School districts and planning teams should learn from the recommendations by professional publications on the design of facilities that provide the safest working and learning environment for teachers and students. The expectation is that planners will have a reasonable awareness of the foibles of human nature, so that they can anticipate the difficulties that might arise and design facilities that do not put people in unsafe environments. Reviewing the research base, consulting expert school architects, suppliers and consultants, can help. Above all the principles of appropriate and safe instructional space should for the basis of the budget and the planning process.

Space: First Line of Defense

The first and most easily calculated factor in school safety is space. Providing adequate space makes common sense and research has proved that it reduces accidents. A significant increase in accidents occurs in school science laboratories when the space per student is less than 41 square

When planning new science classrooms, remember that class size and space are inversely proportional. As the number of students in the class increases, the square footage of working space per student decreases. Crowded classrooms prevent students from moving away from hazards quickly, and teachers from moving around to supervise. Research has shown that in classes with over 22 students safety is likely to be compromised during science experiments. Planners must also consider the number of workstations available to students. If a lab has only 20 stations, or a chemistry lab has only 6 sinks or gas outlets, the number of students that can function safely is limited by that facility. Since design teams cannot predict tomorrow's operational budgets, it is always wise to plan for classes whose sizes will be slightly larger than today's.

Texas Hazardous Communication Act

The Haz Com Act has extensive training requirements, labeling of chemicals, and by implication personal protective equipment such as dual eyewashes, showers, gloves, aprons, face shields must be considered in designing facilities.

Fire Prtection

The most important safety concern for planners is to provide rapid exits from the classrooms. Newer schools tend be one story high and to have few interior classrooms. School buildings with over 20,000 square feet of floor space should have sprinklers and at least two exits, with one leading to the outdoors. If a window provides an exit to the outdoors, it should not have a screen and it should be large enough for an adult to pass through.

Fire protection in science storage rooms is achieved through careful practices and the use of sprinklers and monitoring systems. Chemicals should be stored in a separate room from the equipment and/or preparation rooms. There should be sufficient space in the chemical storeroom to organize them by compatible families and where they are not close together under conditions recommend by OSHA. Chemicals should not be stored in the classroom. Sprinkling systems and smoke and heat detectors are appropriate in storage areas and mechanical rooms

Security

Student storage can be a safety hazard. Separate lockable drawers for students are expensive and are more of a hazard than a benefit. Students can store dangerous materials in them, and separate storage spaces take a great deal of time to search in an emergency.

Code Requirements

When science storage is being designed, the three key elements should be 1) safety, 2) protection from fire, and 3) easy access from the classroom. These requirements can make renovations very difficult. Older buildings may have been built without appropriate exits, fire barriers, or appropriate storage areas. However, the latest building and fire codes apply as soon as structural alterations are made to the building. Architects and school officials must ensure that the proposed alternations and additions conform to code and to best practice in fire safety.

Electrical safety is the third feature that should be built in from the start. Separate circuits with Ground Fault Interrupters (GFI) prevent short circuiting and electrical fires and should be installed on circuits next to wet areas, such as sinks. Grounded outlets prevent electrical accidents from falls onto broken wires.

Ventilation is critical in science rooms. Today's buildings do not use closed systems and generally have a constant intake of approximately 15% outside air that contributes to healthy environments. Science rooms should have an approximately 4 air changes per hour while chemical storerooms require 6-8 air changes per hour that are vented to the outside of the building away from an air intake vent. Ten foot ceilings which provide greater ventilation are highly recommended in science rooms. Chemistry and biology laboratories should have separate fume hoods. Advanced chemistry laboratories require two fume hoods.

Master cut-offs, lighting, sufficient horizontal work space, one work station for each student, and good communication systems, such as telephones or two way public address systems are essential for maintaining a safe environment.

ADA/IDEA Accessibility Requirements:

The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) has requirements that impact the design of science facilities. Providing access to good science experiences for disabled students in most cases is not difficult. Although the 1997 (IDEA) defines the rights of special education students in US schools and mandates inclusion in school programming, the requirements for science facilities must be translated from the general requirements. All classrooms must provide wheelchair access, augmentative communication devices and Braille assistance.

Architects are familiar with the ADA defined standards for physical access that deal with the needs for an elevator, wider doors and aisles. However, in all science facilities, architects need to translate the general requirements into designs that include student stations that can be used by a person in a wheelchair, and special controls with hand levers or electronic controls. This includes lower counter, fume hood decks, and sink heights (34 inches), proper placement of the handicapped lab station for fire egress, wiring for augmentative communication equipment, so that electronic aids such as field monitors (for hearing impaired students) can be installed when needed.

ADA compliant laboratory sinks require maximum sink depth must be 6-1/2 inches to allow a wheelchair to fit under it and he rim of the sink should be at a maximum height of 34 inches. The emergency shower/eyewash unit must have the eyewash bowl mounted at 34 inches above the floor, and the pull handle for the shower is about 54 inches above the floor.

For further information regarding ADAAG regulations to specific design issues, contact the Justice Department's Technical Assistance hotline at 1-800-514-0301.

For more specific information on designing science facilities see the NSTA Guide to School Science Facilities (1999) Biehle, J., Motz, L. & West, S., National Science Teachers Association, Arlington, VA