An analysis of Incident/Accident Reports from the Texas secondary school science safety survey, 2001

School Science and Mathematics, Oct 2003 by Stephenson, Amanda L, West, Sandra S, Westerlund, Julie F, Nelson, Nancy C

Adequate Science Equipment and Facilities

A number of safety recommendations have historically been made based on prudent practices (Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], 1991). Chemical splash-proof safety goggles are necessary to protect the eyes from liquid splashes, touching contaminated fingers to eyes, and flying objects. Due to eye protection concerns, school districts in Texas, Nebraska, and Wisconsin have regulations regarding when protective eye devices must be worn and what type of eye device should be worn for the activity (Gerlovich & Woodland, 2001; Gerlovich et al., 2001; TEC: Protective Eye Devices in Public Schools, 1995).

The prevention of electrical shock in the laboratory is another important aspect of laboratory safety. Science teachers should be aware of ignition sources and the proper use, maintenance, and storage of flammable reagents, electrical cords, outlets and ground fault interrupters. Also, an inventory of all chemicals and protective devices should be conducted (West & Cielencki, 1992). The inventory will reveal any unwanted chemicals which can be disposed of properly, and any malfunctioning safety equipment or lack of such equipment (Fuller et al., 2001; OSHA, 1991; West & Cielencki, 1991).

Safety Training

Safety training is paramount to promoting and maintaining a safe working environment in science settings. The OSHA Laboratory Standard (OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1450) requires the Chemical Hygiene Officer to implement a Chemical Hygiene Plan that requires safely training for teachers that includes the use of Material Safety Data Sheets (Mandt, 1995; OSHA, 1991; Young, 1997). However, not all states have adopted the OSHA standard, and many teachers have not been trained in safety (Krajkovich, 1983; Ward & West, 1990; Gerlovich et al. 2001; Stallingset al., 2001). In 1989, 61% of Texas chemistry teachers reported that they did not have any safety training (Ward & West, 1990). Another report revealed that teachers were poorly informed in several key safely areas, including understanding of ground fault interrupters, types and uses of fire extinguishers, ANSI symbol for safety goggles, and class/size limitations for laboratories (Gerlovich, 1997). Even in 1999, only 47% of teachers surveyed in Wisconsin had received safety training, and only 14% from that survey knew the purpose of Material Safety Data Sheets (Gerlovich et al., 2001).

Teachers who have had proper safety training have fewer accidents (Ward & West, 1990). When a teacher is trained in safety, such practices are modeled and passed on to the students. Student safety training generally includes teachers describing safety precautions, devoting a class period to safety, or testing students on safety (Krajkovich, 1983; Ward & West, 1990).

Methods

Design of the Instrument

The Texas Science Safety Survey is a continuation of research that began in 1989 with the development of a free response science safety survey, which formed the basis for the 1990 Laboratory Safety Survey for Chemistry (Ward & West, 1990). The pilot survey was administered to Texas chemistry teachers who were members of the Science Teachers Association of Texas (STAT). Revisions were made based on the responses, edits, and comments provided in the piloted version.