Never Cut Corners on Safety

Inez Liftig

Teachers are experts at making do with limited resources, and most are overly generous in subsidizing their school system when supplies are lacking. In their dedication to do what is necessary for students, teachers will dig into their own wallets to buy equipment and materials for their classrooms. I have read research that estimates that the average teacher spends hundreds of dollars annually on classroom supplies. The government even recognizes such spending by giving teachers a small IRS deduction to cover part of their out-of-pocket expenses. Science teachers are also champions of flexibility. They will set up shop anywhere schools can find a place for them. Many science teachers are assigned to teach a hands-on curriculum in makeshift places: cleaned-out closets, former storerooms, shared classrooms, and other ill-equipped spaces.

Despite our ingenuity and flexibility, when selecting the manuscripts for the theme of this issue—Limited Classroom Resources—I wanted to be very sure that we did not send the wrong message about whether or not science teachers should spend their own money to support instruction or whether or not we were sanctioning teaching in makeshift science classrooms. Both practices are clearly wrong, and unfair to teachers and students. Teaching science in a less-than-adequately equipped room is unsafe and just plain dangerous, no matter who pays for the supplies. Parents and school districts should not expect teachers to pay for equipment and supplies from personal funds, and we should not have to choose between doing hands-on activities in unsafe rooms or not doing them at all. Where safety is concerned, there are no shortcuts, no make-do techniques that Science Scope authors or anyone else can offer you. School districts must provide safe science teaching facilities—no ifs, ands, or buts, and no substitutions accepted. Safety is not negotiable.

If you are unsure of which minimum safety regulations should be in place in your teaching space, consult the soon-to-be-published NSTA position statement on laboratory science, or the 2000 NSTA position statement on safety. Also each issue of Science Scope has a Scope on Safety column that addresses different aspects of safety for middle level science classrooms, including what constitutes a safe facility. Investigating Safely from NSTA Press will also give you valuable information about what should be present in a properly equipped science classroom. If you are concerned about teaching science in the room to which you are assigned, locate one of these resources immediately and speak to your science supervisor and school administrator.

This issue of Science Scope will give you suggestions on how to be effective with a limited district science-supply budget, how to be creative in locating supplies, and how to be innovative in developing substitute activities that use less expensive materials and equipment. In our Sampler section, June Sanders describes how to teach anatomy with an inexpensive and reusable plastic frog model, Nancy Balter shows how to teach an excellent inquiry lesson using only a package of breath mints, Ann Ross and Tillman Kennon offers directions for teaching lessons on calorimetry and static electricity using recycled aluminum cans, Erin Peters provides suggestions for substitutions for common pieces of equipment, and Sandy Watson outlines a procedure for locating science materials in yard sales and other unexpected places. You’ll also find a number of budget-stretching activities in our feature articles as well.

We know you will find some great ideas that will help you stretch your science-supply funds and still keep your curriculum on track without ever cutting corners on safety!

Inez Liftig, Editor

P.S. What is your best time-saving tip for managing (reviewing, correcting, and recording) homework papers? Send me an e-mail at zenisci8@aol.com.

Response to Editor’s Roundtable Question

What is your best suggestion for getting needed science equipment and supplies on a very limited budget?

In response to your Editor’s Roundtable question in the October 2006 issue, I have an answer that has worked well at my school. As a middle school science teacher, finding adequate materials for my six classes a day is nearly impossible, especially when funding for the year consists of a couple of hundred dollars of BEP money.

Three years ago, through work done while achieving my master’s degree, I developed a strategy that included fine-tuning material needs for science instruction. In essence, the plan cut the needs of three science teachers’ consumable and non-consumable needs by more than half. This was accomplished by assigning our three seventh- and eighth-grade teachers specific disciplines, creating specialists in Earth, life, and physical science.

As a discipline specialist, I am responsible for instruction to a group of students for a 12-week period and then these students rotate to a new teacher for a different discipline. After 12 more weeks, we rotate again to complete the 36-week school year and the required grade-level standards for seventh- and eighth-grade science set forth by the state. In other words, students attend classes instructed by three different teachers during the year to complete the science requirements for their specific grade level.

The benefits that this plan provides include a reduction in the amount of materials required each year for instruction. Since I am only responsible for a third of the seventh- and eighth-grade curriculum, my needs for materials have become very specific. I can much more easily plan for my yearly needs because my planning is based on 12-week increments.

I hope this gives you an idea of the success we are having at our school.

Donny Anderson, Seventh- and eighth-grade life science specialist, Carpenters Middle School, Maryville, Tennessee

Click here for PDF file.