What the Safety Research Says to Texas Science Teachers

The Texas Science Teacher, April, 2002; Vol. 31(1), p 11-15

Sandra S. West, Julie F. Westerlund, Nancy C. Nelson,

Amanda L. Stephenson, & Cynthia K. Nyland

Southwest Texas State University

San Marcos, TX.

 

Tuesday, October 10^th, 2000 seemed to be a typical autumn day at Lee High School in Midland, Texas but an unexpected accident occurred as students mixed chemicals in a dish during a routine chemistry experiment. Although they thought they had taken the proper safety precautions by the day's end, one female student was in critical condition at Memorial Hospital. An explosion burned her critically when an open flame in her chemistry classroom ignited methanol fumes. A fellow student who knew how to use a fire blanket saved her life. Two other students were severely burned (Coffey, 2000). Hopefully stories of this type of accident won't prevent science teachers from conducting active science in their classrooms but that they will instead, make teachers more aware of the necessity for safety in the science classroom.“Hands-on laboratory experience is integral to the nature of science and it must be included in every science program for every student” (National Science Teachers Association, 1993).

Excellence in science teaching requires safe science investigations in the classroom, laboratory, and in the field on nearly a daily basis (National Research Council & National Academy of Sciences, 1996). Due to the necessity of investigations in the science classroom, teachers and students need to be aware of conditions that affect safety and accident rates. Methanol, the chemical involved in the accident described earlier, is certainly not the only culprit in accidents in the science classroom. According to a survey of educators attending safety workshops, most injury-related accidents in the science classroom are caused by burns when students pick up hot objects and when students cut themselves from broken glassware (Krajkovich, 1983; Gerlovich, Whitsett, Lee, & Parsa, 2001). Unfortunately, small or statewide surveys represent most of the research that has been conducted on safety in the science classroom. However, the limited research on safety has indicated that specific conditions can affect safety in the classroom.

This paper organizes the summary of the research around five topics (1) Conditions of Science Teaching; (2) Teacher Certification; (3) Science Facilities; (4) Safety Training; (5) Science Safety Accidents;

1. Conditions of Science Teaching

          “The most important factor in designing school safety is space” (Biehle, Motz, & West, 1999, p.21).

From personal experience, I have found that the more densely populated a laboratory area is, the more likely accidents are to happen. These accidents come from unanticipated and inadvertent physical contact with other students, resulting in the jabbing or spilling of equipment and chemicals (Young, 1970).

Not having enough elbow room or space was a contributing factor in an accident in which a protractor held by one student penetrated the lower eyelid of a nearby student (Ward & West, 1990). Overcrowded science classrooms tend to have more accidents. Accident rates are higher in classrooms that have less than 41 ft² per student and when there are more than 22 students in a classroom (Young, 1972). The larger the class size and the smaller the space per student, the higher the frequency of accidents (Brennan, 1970; Macomber, 1961). (See Table 1). Teachers with class sizes of greater than 24 report a higher rate of accidents (Macomber, 1961; Brennan, 1970; Young, 1972; West & Cielencki, 1992; Fuller, Picucci & Collins, 2001). West and Cielencki (1992) found that 42% of the science teachers have an average class size of greater than 24.“Overcrowding in science classrooms and laboratories, where equipment and chemicals are used, should be a safety concern for every teacher and administrator. Otherwise, overcrowded conditions could result in liability problems for the school district” (Texas Education Agency [TEA] & Charles A. Dana Center, 2000).

Table 1

Distribution of Lab Accidents by Seriousness & Class Size

Macomber, 1961

 

Class Size	No. of Accidents	% of Total Accidents	% Minor Accidents	% Moderate Accidents	% Serious Accidents
Under 10	1	0.7	100	0.0	0.0
11 - 20	5	6.4	77.8	22.2	0.0
21– 30	95	67.9	60.0	37.9	2.1
Over 30	35	25.0	42.9	40.0	17.1

 

National Science Teachers Association recommends that student enrollments in classroom laboratories be limited to 24 students and that the minimum floor space be 45 ft² per student in a pure laboratory and 60 ft² in a combination classroom/laboratory (Biehle et al., 1999). The Texas Science Supervisors Association (1990) recommends that laboratory classes be restricted to a maximum of 24 students. Sixty-nine percent of Texas high school chemistry teachers, 102 sampled, reported not having laboratory rooms of adequate square footage for a class size of 24 students (Ward & West, 1990). Over 66% of Texas science teachers whose class size was more than 24 reported they did not have rooms of adequate square footage (West & Cielencki, 1992).

The number of students assigned to each laboratory class should not exceed 24. Students must have immediate access to the teacher in order to provide a safe and effective learning environment.” (Council of State Science Supervisors: Laboratory Safety).

The Texas School Facilities Standards require all science combination classrooms that were constructed after September 1, 1998, to meet minimum square footage requirements (Texas Administrative Code: School Facilities Standards, 1995). Middle school science rooms must have a minimum of 50 ft² per pupil or a minimum of 1,000 ft² (based on a class size of 20). High school science rooms must have a minimum of 50 ft² per pupil or a minimum of 1,200 ft² (based on a class size of 24).

The number of different courses and/or extracurricular activities for which a science teacher needs to plan may create a teaching condition that can affect safety. Including a laboratory component in a science course is similar to teaching an additional course, because of the large amount of time required for preparation of materials and equipment for implementing the laboratory. Accidents increase when teachers are teaching more than two preparations at the same time (Biehle et al., p.29). However, it is not uncommon for science teachers to prepare for three or more different classes. For example, in Texas, a sample survey revealed that 65% of chemistry teachers teach three or more different classes (Ward & West, 1990). Overall, 32% of Texas secondary science teachers reported in 1989, teaching three or more different science courses (Lien & Skoog, 1989).

Horseplay in the laboratory that results from inadequate classroom discipline is a contributing factor to accidents (Krajkovich, 1983; Macomber, 1961). Administrative support for teachers in handling discipline also contributes to laboratory safety. Texas teachers have the authority to remove a disruptive student from the classroom (Texas Education Code: Alternative Settings for Behavior Management, 1995). The student may be sent to the administrative office for disruptive behavior in order for a safe science learning environment to be maintained.

Regular safety audits of laboratories are crucial for the prevention of accidents. A safety audit of a laboratory should be conducted annually (West, 1991; TEA & Dana Center, 2000) as stated in the Hazard Communication Standards (Reat, 1996). Such audits may be conducted under the supervision of the Chemical Hygiene Officer. As stated in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Laboratory Standard, Chemical Hygiene Plan (29 CFR 1910.1450) (OSHA, 1991), it is the responsibility of the Chemical Hygiene Officer to implement a Chemical Hygiene Plan that requires reviewing all purchases of chemicals, providing safety training for teachers, including use of Material Safety Data Sheets and inspecting laboratories on a regular basis (Mandt, 1995, Young, 1997). The Texas Hazardous Communication Act, 1993 has requirements for training for all employees, including science teachers (Texas Department of Health,1993).

Science teachers have been surveyed in safety workshops concerning safe management of science activities. In North Carolina, only 60% of teacher participants indicated they had access to these sheets (Stallings, Gerlovich, & Parsa, 2001). Of Nebraska teachers surveyed, 48% indicated that safety inspections were not conducted (Gerlovich & Woodland, 2001). An inventory of all chemicals and protective devices should be conducted. All chemicals should be labeled with the chemical name and formula and the physical and health hazards associated with the chemical. Furthermore, chemicals should be stored in compatible families in a locked storage room with two exits. In North Carolina, 40% of secondary science facilities did not have adequate storage for chemicals (Stallings, et al., 2001). Flammable chemicals should be stored in an UL approved flammables cabinet.

2. Certification

The presence of an uncertified or inadequately prepared teacher in a science classroom may pose a safety hazard. Young (1970) and Krajkovich (1983) found that teachers with less experience had more accidents. There is a need to determine whether uncertified teachers and teachers on“emergency permits” have had safety training and previous laboratory and field experiences. Today in Texas, 30% of Texas science teachers are not fully certified (Texas A&M University, 2001). Nationwide, approximately 50% of teachers leave the classroom within the first five years. In Texas, 32% of the science teachers leave the classroom during the first three years of teaching, (Texas State Board of Educator Certification, 2000). The type of degree held by a teacher and their teaching experience may affect safety in the laboratory. New certification requirements, including alternative certification, provide shortcuts to the classroom and may not provide adequate safety training for new science teachers. Teachers with advanced degrees and the most experience have significantly fewer accidents (Krajkovich, 1983). An earlier study reported that teachers with fewer than four years of teaching experience have more laboratory accidents (Young, 1972). This may be due to insufficient familiarity with the facilities and/or classroom management. In 1989 in Texas, 14% of secondary science teachers had taught less than five years (Lien & Skoog, 1989). That figure is likely to be larger today due to the current science teaching turnover rate. In Nebraska, 23% of science teachers have zero to five years teaching experience (Gerlovich & Woodland, 2001).

3. Science Facilities

            Science facilities are the foundation of safe science. Facilities can support excellent and safe science instruction or they can impede it in many ways. For example, it is often the plight of the new science teacher to“float”, or travel to different rooms during the school day. These teachers do not have rooms of their own and may lack the authority to make changes in regards to safety in the different rooms. As a result, a“floating” science teacher may not be able to regulate the safety of the laboratory.

Safety goggles that have been properly sanitized are necessary to protect the eyes from flying objects. Goggles should be approved by American National Standards Institute (ANSI), which means they will not break or burn under normal laboratory conditions. Safety glasses do not provide eye protection in situations where chemical splashes are involved (Young, 1997). Not all science teachers have splash proof safety goggles and functioning eyewash stations (Krajkovich, 1983; Senkbeil, 1991; Gerlovich et al., 2001).

School districts in Texas are required to adopt rules designating when protective eye devices should be worn and the type necessary under these conditions (Texas Education Code: Protective Eye Devices in Public Schools, 1995). The rules apply to all teachers, students and anyone observing a science activity where protective eye devices are needed.

The prevention and treatment of fire in the laboratory is another important aspect of laboratory safety. Science teachers should be aware of ignition sources and the proper use of flammable reagents, electrical cords, outlets and ground fault interrupters in order to prevent fires. Approved fire blankets, safety showers, and fire extinguishers should be easily accessible to teachers and students. A survey of 102 chemistry teachers in Texas revealed that most (97%) had fire extinguishers, but only 58% had safety showers (Ward & West, 1990). A survey of New Jersey teachers also revealed that many teachers (46%) do not have safety showers (Krajkovich, 1983). Many teachers do not have access to a flammable liquids cabinet (Ward & West, 1990; Senkbeil, 1991). The absence of safety showers and flammable liquids cabinets in school laboratories needs to be addressed.

Fume hoods are essential in any laboratory or preparatory room where hazardous or vaporous chemicals are used (West, 1991; TEA & Dana Center, 2000). The methanol accident, described earlier, might not have occurred if they had been conducted under a fume hood. Many secondary school laboratories are not equipped with fume hoods (Ward & West, 1990; Krajkovich, 1983).

            A laboratory safety facilities checklist would include many different aspects that affect safety. In addition to the items already described, first-aid kits, lab aprons, gloves, MSDS sheets, adequate storeroom, corrosives cabinet, adequate number of sinks, and two exit doors need to be present for a laboratory environment to be safe (West, 1991; TEA & Dana Center, 2000).

4. Safety Training

Safety training of teachers is required by federal law in the Chemical Hygiene Plan (29 CFR 1910.1450) (OSHA,1991). However, a large proportion of teachers have not been trained in safety (Krajkovich, 1983; Ward & West, 1990; Gerlovich et al., 2001). Even in 1999, only 47% of teachers surveyed in Wisconsin had received safety training and only 14% from that survey knew the purpose of MSDSs (Gerlovich, Gerard, & Hartman, 1996). This reflects a lack of training (Gerlovich, et al., 1996). A sample of 500 teachers from 11 states revealed that teachers were poorly informed in key safety areas (Gerlovich, 1997). These areas included understanding of ground fault interrupters, types and uses of fire extinguishers, the ANSI symbol for safety goggles, and class size limitations for laboratories (Gerlovich, 1997). Teachers that have safety training have fewer accidents (Ward & West, 1990). In terms of student safety training, most teachers reported that they mentioned safety precautions and devoted a class period to safety or tested students on safety (Ward & West, 1990; Krajkovich, 1983). One teacher, with an injury-free safety record, reported that students were not allowed to do laboratory work until after scoring a perfect score on an extensive laboratory safety examination (Macomber, 1961).

5. Safety Accidents

            “The chemistry laboratory in high school or higher education is ten times more hazardous than is the chemical industry workplace” (Young, 1983). Safety accidents occur frequently in the school science laboratory and in the field. Incidence rates of accidents vary among safety surveys. Overall, between 29% to 65% of teachers report having accidents (Young, 1970; Young, 1972; Ward & West, 1990). West & Cielencki (1992) found that 53% of the Texas science teachers reported having accidents in their science classes during the school year. Accident rates vary from 0.54 to 1.29 per week (Krajkovich, 1983; Young, 1972). Most accidents involved burns from handling hot objects, contact with corrosive chemicals or cuts from broken glassware (Krajkovich, 1983; Macomber, 1961; Ward & West, 1990; West & Cielencki, 1992). Of accidents requiring a physician’s care, many are due to injuries to the eye (Krajkovich, 1983).

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

            A review of the research on safety in the science classroom, laboratory, and field that patterns in the data clearly indicate specific hazardous conditions. The observations by and anecdotes from science teachers and science educators concerning the most serious hazards are confirmed by the research studies. Overcrowding, lack of discipline and poor design of facilities have been identified as serious hazards.

In order to prevent accidents in the science classroom, certain conditions must exist.  These include: 1) Science classes must be reduced to a safe size; 2) Teacher preparation and in-service training should include both in-depth subject matter and safety instruction; 3) Districts should have an enforced written safety policy; 4) Science facilities should have safe design as the primary consideration by planner; 5) Districts, architects and project managers must follow the requirements in the Texas Education Agency Facilities Standards; 7) Districts and schools should enforce strict discipline policies for misbehavior in science classes; 9) The district, school and teacher should conduct safety inspections regularly; 10) Districts should provide for secure chemical storage separate from the preparation and equipment storeroom, the laboratory and the classroom; 11) All science classrooms, laboratories, preparation/equipment storerooms should be adequately ventilated to assure minimum ventilation to exceed 15 ft³ per minute per person (per ASHRAE Standard 62-1989).

            Additional research needs to be conducted to further clarify the hazards in today’s science classroom, laboratory, and field and identify the ones that link with more accidents and more serious accidents in all regions of the United States. Case studies of individual serious accidents should also be analyzed for identification of factors that link with the accidents. This research will provide information for the research basis of policy decisions in the federal government, state legislatures, state agencies, districts, and schools.

REFERENCES

 

Biehle, J. T., Motz, L. L., & West, S. S. (1999). NSTA Guide to School Science Facilities (p. 21). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Brennan, J. W. (1970). An Investigation of Factors Related to Safety in the High School Science Program. Dissertation, University of Denver. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 085179.

Coffey, C. (2000). Explosion at high school lab injures students. Midland Reporter-Telegram. October 12, 2000. Retrieved November 13, 2000, from http://www.hearstnp.com/san_antonio/bea/news/stories/mix/mix103140.shtml

Council of State Science Supervisors: Laboratory Safety Position Paper. Retrieved March 25, 2002 from http//:csss.enc.org/position.htm

Fuller, E. J., Picucci, A. C., & Collins, J. W. (2001). An Analysis of Laboratory Safety in Texas. Austin, TX: The Charles A. Dana Center.

Gerlovich, J. A., Gerard, T. A., & Hartman, K. A. (1996). Science Safety Manual for Alabama Secondary Schools, October, Bulletin 1996, No. 28. Waukee, IA: JaKel.

Gerlovich, J. A. (1997). Safety Standards: An Examination of What Teachers Know and Should Know about Safety. The Science Teacher, 64(3), 47-49.

Gerlovich, J. A., Wilson, E., & Parsa, R. (1998). Safety Issues and Iowa Science Teachers. The Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science, December, 105(4), 152-157.

Gerlovich, J. A., Whitsett, J., Lee, S., & Parsa, R. (2001). Surveying Safety: How Researchers Addressed Safety in Science Classrooms in Wisconsin. The Science Teacher, 64(4), 31-36.

Gerlovich, J. A. & Woodland, J. (2001). Nebraska Secondary Science Teacher Safety Project: A 2000 Status Report. The Nebraska Science Teacher, 1(1).

Krajkovich, J. G. (1983). A Survey of Accidents in the Secondary School Science Laboratory (p. 22). Location: New Jersey Science Supervisors Association.

Lien, V., & Skoog, G., (1989). Survey of Texas Science Education. The Texas Science Teacher, 18(2), 5-17.

Macomber, R. D. (1961). Chemistry Accidents in High School. Journal of Chemical Education, 38(7), 367-368.

Mandt, D. K. (1995). The Effect of the Chemical Hygiene Law on School Biology Laboratories. The American Biology Teacher, 57(2).

National Research Council & National Academy of Sciences. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

NSTA Task Force on Science Facilities and Equipment. (1993). Facilitating Science Facilities: A Priority. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (1991). Rules and Regulations (FR Doc. 91-288886). Federal Register 569235. Washington, DC.

Reat, K. (1996). Liability Issues Regarding Science Teachers. The Texas Science Teacher, 25(2), 4-8.

Senkbeil, E. G. (1991). High School Chemistry Safety Survey. Journal of Chemical Education, July.

Stallings, C., Gerlovich, J., Parsa, R. (2001). School Safety: A Status Report in North

Carolina Schools. The Science Reflector, 30(3), 11-12.

Texas A & M University. (2001). Teacher Demand Study 2000-01. Institute for School-University Partnerships. Texas A&M University System.

Texas Administrative Code: School Facilities Standards. (1995). Title 19, Part II, Chapter 61, Subchapter CC, Section 61.1033.

Texas Education Agency and the Charles A. Dana Center (2000). Texas Safety Standards: Kindergarten through Grade 12. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Texas Education Code: Alternative Settings for Behavior Management. (1995). Title II, Subtitle G, Chapter 37, Subchapter A, Section 37.002.

Texas Education Code: Protective Eye Devices in Public Schools. (1995). Title II, Subtitle G, Chapter 38, Section 38.005.

Texas Department of Health. (1993). Hazardous Communication Act. Title 25, Subtitle D, Chapter 502, Subchapter A, Section 502.

Texas Science Supervisors Association/Texas Science Education Leadership Association. (1990). Position Statement: A Safe and Effective Learning Environment. Authors.

Texas State Board of Educator Certification. (2001). Who’s Teaching in Texas Public Schools? 2000-2001. Retrieved March 25, 2002 from http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/pubrep/whoisteach/whoisteachintxpubsch2001.pdf

Ward, S. & West, S. S. (1990). Accidents in Texas High School Chemistry Labs. The Texas Science Teacher, 19(2), May.

West, S. S. (1991). Lab Safety. The Science Teacher, 58(9), 45-49.

West, S. S. & Cielencki, C. (1992, March). Lab Safety in Texas. Paper presented at the meeting of the Texas Academy of Science, Wichita Falls, TX.

Young, J. R. (1970). A Survey of Safety in High School Chemistry Laboratories in Illinois. Journal of Chemical Education, 47(12), A828-838.

Young, J. R. (1972). A Second Survey of Safety in Illinois High School Laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 49(1), 55.

Young, J. A. (1983). How Safe Are the Students in My Lab? Journal of Chemical Education, 60(12), 1067-1068.

Young, J. A. (1997). Chemical Safety Part 1: Safety in the Handling of Hazardous Chemicals. The Science Teacher, March, 1977.