[neact] Re: MAPLE GROVE SCIENCE ACCIDENT
- From: carypq <carypq@xxxxxxx>
- To: neact@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:26:29 -0400 (EDT)
Hello NEACT members,
I certainly would hope that ACS or NSTA members were called together to
produce this "71-page document," NOT just firemen, lawyers and school officials.
Questions:
1) Were 71 pages really necessary to address this issue?
2) Will 71 pages result in positive change?
3) The ACS already has and disseminates demonstration standards that address
this issue in general terms.
Have school officials familiarized themselves with these?
Will they/do they even understand them?
Can they pass responsibility over to the science chair?
Will the science chair be able to intelligently promulgate these standards
so as not to prevent safe and useful demonstrations and/or evaluate the
competence of his chemistry teachers?
4) How about a statement about the whoosh-bottle demo from NEACT teachers that
addresses the safety in terms of the science? I could lead the charge. I've
been doing this demo in various forms for 25 years. I'm sure others would also
contribute useful information, ideas, and vignettes.
5) In more cosmic terms we need a specific chemistry-teacher BA and MST degree
from universities, rather than an MAT through the education department, to
ensure sufficient pedagogical content knowledge in addition to adequate content
knowledge.
6) ACS is currently submitting a proposal to NSF for a ChemTEC program modeled
after PhysTEC, that is already funded, to produce more well-trained HS physics
teachers:
http://www.phystec.org/
7) I have already sent a list of suggestions to Mary Kirchoff, head of
education at ACS.
Do you have others?
Send them my way and I'll send you what I wrote.
8) We need more and better training for science teachers at all levels.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Cary Kilner
Chemistry Education Research
UNH
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Stepenuck <sstepenuck@xxxxxxxxx>
To: neact <neact@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed, May 30, 2012 1:46 am
Subject: [neact] CHANGES MADE FOLLOWING MAPLE GROVE SCIENCE ACCIDENT
Finally some info on the actual demo that burned four students back in December.
This is taken from the listserve of the Division of Chemical Health and Safety
of ACS, May 22, 2012.
As I think most of you know, the demo does not consist of someone’s dropping a
“match into a jug of methanol,” as the news report said.
The “methanol cannon” and other related demonstrations involving combustion of
various alcohols [or other flammable liquids] have apparently been involved in
many accidents resulting in student injuries. For example,
http://www.labsafetyinstitute.org/resources/mecannon.htm
---------------------------------------------
CHANGES MADE FOLLOWING MAPLE GROVE SCIENCE ACCIDENT
http://www.kare11.com/news/article/976781/391/Changes-made-following-Maple-Grove-science-accident
Tags: us_MN, laboratory, follow-up, injury, methanol
MAPLE GROVE, Minn. - The Osseo School District is making changes to its
teacher-led science demonstrations after four students were injured in a
classroom accident several months ago.
In the 71-page report, the methanol demonstration that burned the students back
in December will not be allowed pending further review. It has not been used in
the classroom since the accident.
It's called the "Whoosh - Flash Bottle" demonstration where someone drops a
match into a jug of methanol.
The report also calls for a more stringent approval process for science
demonstrations, a detailed list of approved demonstrations, and all secondary
science teachers will now have to watch videos on science safety.
---------------------------------------------
Be safe!
Steve
--
Stephen J. Stepenuck, Ph.D.
Professor of chemistry emeritus
Keene State College
Keene NH 03435-2001
sstepenuck@xxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
- » [neact] Re: MAPLE GROVE SCIENCE ACCIDENT - carypq
