Tech Directions - January 2009 - (Page 19) teaching and testing for safety. Again, the comprehensive safety plan, and all its associated components, provides evidence that the instructor did provide for a complete safety program that ensures the safety of all students. In the event that a student is injured in the instructional facility, the four elements of negligence will all be judged, addressing the following questions related to the comprehensive safety plan: (1) Is a plan available? (2) Was it followed? (3) Was safety infused in every lesson? (4) Is there documentation showing that students were properly trained, tested, and able to demonstrate safe practices? (5) Was safety reinforced throughout the course? (6) Was safety enforced? Safety Testing While all aspects of a comprehensive safety program are important, testing for safety deserves particular attention. Safety tests can be either written or hands-on. According to Kigin, they are “designed to evaluate how well the pupils have assimilated the information, habits, skills, and attitudes essential to their own safety and well-being” (1983, p. 95). In addition to serving as an aid to the instructional process, safety tests can document the fact that safety instruction has been given and may provide the instructor with a certain degree of legal protection should negligence be alleged (Kigin, 1983). Students should be required to obtain a score of nothing less than 100% on all safety tests, regardless of how many attempts this may take. In addition, educators should give safety tests repeatedly (i.e., at the beginning of each semester), even for students participating in a two-year program. The rationale for giving the test each time the student begins a new semester (even if it is the same test) is that this practice not only helps to reinforce safety concepts and practices for the student, but also ensures that the instructor maintains current documentation. It is important to note that several organizations provide online safety training and testing for students in CTE programs. These are usually inexpensive and are an excellent way to make available self-paced learning and testing that provides documentation for the instructor and evidence of completion (e.g., a wallet card or certificate) for the student. In particular, the Career Safe Online OSHA Training Program offers an OSHA-approved 10-hour General Industry Course and a 10-hour Construction Industry Course for a small fee per student. Both courses are delivered via interactive modules and qualify for Perkin’s funding. A very popular online safety training and testing site for those teaching in the automotive and collision areas is Safety and Pollution Prevention (S/P2). Also offered at an affordable cost to schools, this program, like Career Safe, offers instructor documentation and a certificate of completion for the student. Both of these programs provide a full range of safety topics including MSDS and Right to Know instruction. For more information, visit www.careersafeonline.com and www.sp2.org/index.php. Safety Inspection One of the important elements of the “foreseeabilty” test for negligence involves determining whether or not an accident could have been prevented. Conducting a periodic check of the facility and its tools, equipment, and instruments is one way educators can identify and correct hazardous conditions before they cause injuries. As previously mentioned, the NIOSH Safety Checklist Program for Schools provides these safety checklists for numerous CTE programs. The purpose of the NIOSH Safety Checklist program is “to protect teachers and students by identifying and eliminating environmental, safety, and health hazards in classrooms, shops, and labs” (NIOSH, n.d.). Obviously, making periodic inspections of the instructional facility is a strategy that follows the “best defense is a good offense” line of thinking when it comes to reducing injuries and minimizing liability. Some instructors are concerned that the checklists may actually increase their chances of being held liable for a student injury. But in refuting this notion, NIOSH (n.d.) offers the following explanation: “…you may encounter resistance from some teachers because they are concerned about being held liable for hazards found in their classroom, lab, or shop if they sign the checklist. In recent lawsuits, teachers have fared best if they could demonstrate that they documented hazards and tried to take appropriate actions to correct them [italics added]. Teachers who took the approach that they did not know about a hazard often were not released from liability. The rationale for this was teachers were presumed to be the experts in their field, so they should know how to ensure safety and health in their classrooms, shops, and labs.” Clearly, in the interest of safety for everyone involved, a plan to eliminate or control identified hazards is one of the critical elements of a comprehensive safety program. Additional Concepts Regarding Liability CTE educators should be aware of a few additional terms related to liability and negligence. The concepts of in loco parentis, contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk are important to understand. Under the principle of in loco parentis (“in place of the parent”), instructors assume some of the rights and duties of the parents (Kigin, 1983). Consequently, this concept often applies in deciding cases regarding secondary-school age or younger children involved in laboratory accidents. Essentially, in loco parentis is how schools derive the power “to control the conduct of . . . pupils and can be regarded as the legal duty of teachers to care for school children” (Kigin, 1983, p. 63). As Hall and Marsh (2003) report, due to the age and maturity of postsecondary students, the doctrine of in loco parentis is usually ruled out. F www.techdirections.com CTE 19 http://www.careersafeonline.com http://www.careersafeonline.com http://www.sp2.org/index.php http://www.techdirections.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.