Content uploaded by Purity Nguhiu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Purity Nguhiu on Nov 30, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Researchjournali’s Journal of Public Health
Vol. 4 | No. 7 July | 2018
1
www.researchjournali.com
Gongo E.S.A
Student, School Of Public Health, Department Of
Environment And Occupational Health Kenyatta
University, Kenya
Warutere P, N
School Of Public Health, Department Of Environment
And Occupational Health Kenyatta University, Kenya
Nguhiu P.N
School Of Agriculture And Enterprise Development,
Department Of Animal Sciences Kenyatta University,
Kenya
Assessment Of
Level Of Compliance
To Laboratory Safety
In Secondary School
In Kitui County,
Kenya
Researchjournali’s Journal of Public Health
Vol. 4 | No. 7 July | 2018
2
www.researchjournali.com
ABSTRACT
Laboratories are potentially dangerous work environment, often containing a wide variety of toxic, flammable,
corrosive and reactive compounds that can cause accident if safety standards are not adhered to. The objective
of the study was to determine the level of compliance to laboratory safety in secondary school science
laboratories in Kitui County, Kenya. The level of compliance considered were; presence of emergency door,
presence of double door opening out wards, windows without grills, fire extinguisher next to the exit, 45
students or less per given class, safety instructions displayed in their laboratories, safety posters in strategic
places in the lab and handouts on safety. Most schools complied with the laboratory safety standards assessed
but 72.22% indicated presence of windows with grills, 55.56% indicated that they do not attend refresher
training on laboratory safety, 62.96% indicated lack safety posters in strategic places in a science laboratory
and 50% did not have handouts on laboratory safety. The study showed significant statistical association
between safety procedures and type of schools (p ≤ 0.05 or 95% CI included 1). It was concluded that there was
partial compliance to safety standards in some schools. The study recommended that the coordination and
follow up of all stakeholders in the safety policy implementation process should be improved to ensure that
safety standards are adhered to. Teachers must maintain the science facility and all equipments used by students.
Keywords: Kenya, students, safety, injuries, types, causes, Kitui, association
1. INTRODUCTION
Safety among students are measures undertaken by the learner, staff and other stakeholders to either minimize
or eliminate risky conditions or threats that may cause accidents, bodily injuries as well as emotional and
psychological distress (UNICEF, 2009). The key to safe science involves knowledge of safety rules,
communication within schools, and linking school practices to organizations outside the school. National
Science Teachers Association (NSTA) argues that laboratory experiences are an essential part of learning
science. The responsibility for providing students with a safe science laboratory environment lies with four
groups - the school board, the school administration, the science teachers and the students themselves. Teachers
and schools have a legal and a moral responsibility to ensure safety for their students (NSTA, 2007). Since
laboratories are an expensive investment and are expected to last for many years, poor location or design will
impact on generation of users (Lyons, 2002). Laboratory size and education quality has not kept pace with
quality and exponential rise in students population, further stresses the school physical facility and increase risk
of laboratory injuries (KENPRO, 2010). Learning institutions in Kenya have continued to experience different
disasters emanating from inappropriate school physical infrastructure among other factors (Mwangi, 2008).
Inspection is poorly planned and lack clear objectives. Plans to visit schools are over ambitious and are carried
out only when there is crisis (MOE, 2000). Kenyan schools are ill equipped in the face of fire disaster (Otieno,
Researchjournali’s Journal of Public Health
Vol. 4 | No. 7 July | 2018
3
www.researchjournali.com
2010). Kenyan secondary schools have had frequent fire occurrences in dormitories, administration blocks and
laboratories. In Kenya there is poor coordination from the MOE regarding safety policy issuance (Omolo and
Simatwa, 2010).
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 STUDY DESIGN
Descriptive cross sectional research design was used and exploratory studies to allow the study gather
information, summarize, present and interpret for the purpose of clarification.
2.2 STUDY LOCATION
The study was carried out in both public and private secondary school in Kitui central sub-County, Kitui County,
Kenya.
2.3 STUDY POPULATION
The study population was 34 secondary schools (3 boys, 3 girls and 28 mixed schools) in Kitui County, Kenya.
The study population comprised 34 head teachers who ensure safety practices are followed in their schools and
108 science teachers who gave details on specific aspects of safety practices in their respective school science
laboratories (Chemistry, Physics and Biology).
2.4 SAMPLE SIZE
Gay (1992), states that the minimum sample size should be 20% of the population for a small population and
Mugenda (2003), states that a fraction of at least 20% of the total population of less than 100 were also used.
Using these formulas the number of respondent recruited were 54.
2.5 STUDY VARIABLES
Study included both independent and dependent variables. Independent variable was level of compliance to
laboratory safety. Dependent variable was laboratory safety. The variables sought to find out the level of
compliance to laboratory safety.
2.6 STUDY INSTRUMENT
Self-administered questionnaires were issued to the 54 study participants. The questionnaire included both
structured and unstructured questions that captured data on demographic information, types of injuries and
compliance level. Observation checklist was also used in the study to check on laboratoty condition and
availability of laboratory records.
2.7 DATA ANALYSIS
Data was sorted, coded and keyed into a personal computer using Statistical Packages for Social Sciences
(SPSS) version 20. Data collected were analyzed based on descriptive statistics such as frequencies, averages
and percentages. Quantitative data from questionnaires were analyzed by computing various statistics.
Researchjournali’s Journal of Public Health
Vol. 4 | No. 7 July | 2018
4
www.researchjournali.com
Qualitative data were analyzed under themes and sub themes then was converted into a write up using coding
categories related to research questions. Fisher’s exact test (Odds Ratio) was used when table cells had expected
values/frequencies less than five. The P value and Confidence Interval (CI) were used to determine whether or
not the association was statistically significant.
2.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION
Study approval was sought from Kenyatta University Graduate School Ref Q139//CE/24563/2012, written
permission from Kenyatta University Ethical review committee application No: PKU/536/1629 and National
Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) permit No: NACOSTI/P/16/33029/12740.
Permission was also sought from school administrators of participating schools. Signed informed consent was
sought from study respondents and confidentiality was maintained. Study participants were free to decline from
participating in the study and to withdraw participation at any time.
3. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
3.1 RESULTS
3.1.1 LABORATORY SAFETY STANDARDS
On the availability of a copy of laboratory safety standards in the schools; eleven schools (61%) reported that
their schools had a copy; six schools (33%) indicated that they had no copy while one school did not respond.
3.1.2 LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE TO LABORATORY SAFETY STANDARDS
Researcher wanted to find out whether schools comply with laboratory safety standards in accordance with
MOE safety standards manual (Republic of Kenya, 2008). The study revealed that; most schools complied to
the laboratory safety standards assessed but 72.22% (n=39) which is more than half indicated presence of
windows with grills, 55.56% (n=30) indicated that they do not attend refresher training on laboratory safety,
62.96% (n=34) indicated lack safety posters in strategic places in a science laboratory and 50% (n=27) did not
have handouts on laboratory safety (Table 1). The study showed significant statistical association between
safety procedures and type of schools (p ≤ 0.05 or 95% CI included 1)
Table 1: Level of Compliance to lab safety standards
Respondent response
Independent variable
Dependent variable (N=54)
Safety procedure
N
%
Statistical significance
Laboratory windows and doors
facing north-south direction
YES
49
90.74
OR=4.36
95%CI=0.932-5.02
p=0.00312
NO
5
9.26
Availability emergency door
YES
52
96.30
OR=3.03
NO
2
3.70
95%CI=1.53-18.71
0.00
p=0.0019
Presence of double door opening
outward
YES
54
100.00
OR=2.561
NO
0
0.00
95%CI=0.431-11.72
p=<0.001
windows without grills
YES
15
27.78
OR=3.01
NO
39
72.22
95%CI=2.5-3.96
Researchjournali’s Journal of Public Health
Vol. 4 | No. 7 July | 2018
5
www.researchjournali.com
p=0.005
Availability of fire extinguishers
placed next to exit door
YES
38
70.37
OR=3.38
NO
16
29.63
95%CI=1.93-4.72
p=0.003
45 students per class or less
YES
43
79.63
OR=3.764
NO
11
20.37
95%CI=2.04-15.72
p=0.0043
safety instruction displayed in the
lab
YES
36
66.67
OR=6.09
NO
18
33.33
95%CI=1.9-2.32
p=0.011
teachers attend refresher training on
safety
YES
24
44.44
OR=2.7
NO
30
55.56
95%CI=2.54-9.82
p=0.0039
Safety posters displayed in strategic
places in the lab
YES
22
40.74
OR=7.30
NO
34
62.96
95%CI=1.32-2.0
p=0.010
hand out on lab safety given to
teachers
YES
27
50.00
OR=6.316
NO
27
50.00
95%CI=2.34-10.07
p=0.001
3.1.3 LABORATORY SAFETY CONDITIONS
To establish the safety condition of the laboratory, a checklist in which various safety issues were checked in
the school science laboratory in accordance with MOE safety standards manual (Republic of Kenya, 2008) was
used. Study revealed that; in all national and extra-County schools (18.89%, n=3) bench tops were not smooth
while 81.11%, n=15 (County, sub-County and private schools) had smooth bench tops, chemical storage shelves
were not in proper order in all the schools, emergency hazardous chemicals list was not prepared for
administration in all the schools, fume chamber was observed blocked and even used as store for books in some
schools (11.11% of the schools) while the rest had fume chambers and 18.89%, n=3 of the schools were found
having laboratory records of injuries (Table 2).
Table 2: Laboratory safety conditions
Safety Condition
Response
N
%
Bench tops were made of smooth material
Yes
15
81.11
No
3
18.89
Chemical storage shelves were in proper order
Yes
0
0.00
No
18
100.00
Emergency hazardous chemicals list prepared
for administration
Yes
0
0.00
No
18
100.00
Fume chamber present and functioning
Yes
16
98.99
No
2
11.11
Laboratory records of injuries
Yes
3
18.89
No
15
81.11
The plates below shows observed features in some science laboratories. In some schools fume chambers were
totally blocked and used as store for book (Plate 1 (A) & (B)). In some schools, there was no order in the
arrangement of chemicals and apparatus (Plate 2 (A) & (B)). In other schools, the bench tops were observed
worn out, rough and made of very poor material (Plate 3).
Researchjournali’s Journal of Public Health
Vol. 4 | No. 7 July | 2018
6
www.researchjournali.com
(A) (B)
Plate 1: State of fume chamber
(A) (B)
Plate 2: Arrangements of chemicals/ apparatus observed in a school with a single laboratory
Plate 3: State of bench tops in science laboratories
3.2 DISCUSSIONS
From the results presented, majority of schools had a copy of laboratory safety standards guidelines while some
had no copy. Study further established that in most of the schools the Safety Standards were not fully complied
to. Some schools did not have a copy on laboratory safety standards because it had not been availed to them by
the MOE. Some of the respondents blamed it on the administration for its negligence. This is contrary to the
MOE policy which requires that all the schools should have a copy and comply with the standards. This shows
Researchjournali’s Journal of Public Health
Vol. 4 | No. 7 July | 2018
7
www.researchjournali.com
that some schools do not comply with the lab safety standards. Lack of laboratory safety standard guidelines
was interpreted to mean lack of knowledge on laboratory safety standards. This study is in agreement with
Muigai (2011) who found out that knowledge of the MOEST safety guideline among the institution heads
teachers was poor. This low knowledge is worrying since the persons responsible for laboratory safety must
ensure that students are safe while in the laboratory.
The researcher wanted to find out whether laboratory standards were complied with as required by MOEST.
The study showed significant statistical association between safety procedures and type of schools; many
schools ( 90.74%) had their laboratory windows and doors facing away from direct sunlight (OR=4.36,
95%CI=0.932-5.02), almost all the schools (96.3%) had emergency door (OR=3.03,95%CI=1.53-18.71), all the
schools had double door opening out wards (OR=2.2561,95%CI=0.431-11.72, P=<0.001), many schools
(72.22%) had windows with grills (OR=3.01,95%CI=2.5-3.96,P=0.005), some schools (70.37%) had fire
extinguisher placed next to the exit (OR=3.3895%CI=1.93-4.72, P=0.003), many schools (79.63%) had more
than 45 students per given class (OR=3.764,95%CI=2.04-15.72,P=0.0043), most schools (66.67%) had safety
instructions displayed in the laboratory (OR=6.09,95%CI=1.9-2.32,P=0.011), less than half (44.44%) of the
teachers attend refresher training (OR=2.7,95%CI=2.54-9.82,P=0.0039), some schools (62.96%) lacked safety
posters in strategic places in the laboratories (OR=7.30,95%CI=1.32-2.0,P=0.010) and half of the teachers
agreed to possess handouts on safety (OR=6.316,95%CI=2.34-10.07,P=0.001). While most of the safety issues
were followed in secondary school science laboratories, some were not followed. The findings is contrary to
MOE regulations which require that school facilities like laboratories should have windows without grills to
ensure safety of students and other users in case of emergencies like fire outbreak. This may be due to fear of
theft of the equipments in the laboratories and may be because some facilities are old and have not been
renovated. The study further indicated that many teachers disagreed that they attend refresher training on safety
in the science laboratory. The personnel available lacked necessary skills and equipment to handle the safety
standards. This means that safety policy have not been fully complied to. It is important for school management
especially school principals who are implementers of government policies to embrace safety standards and
guidelines fully. This partial compliance in some schools should be a major concern to MOE officials who are
the policy makers. This confirms sentiments by Maulidi (2008) who found out that lack of regular
communication to sensitize the various stakeholders on their roles hampers smooth implementation of safety
policies in Kisumu City. Rugut (2003) further found out that QASOs were ineffective in their jobs and did not
disseminate new policies of the MOE. Wainaina (2012) reported that there is poor safety and health standards
implementation in schools. Omollo and Simatwa (2010) reported that few schools in Kisumu east and west
districts had fire extinguishers.
Using a checklist, the study sought to establish the state of safety in the science laboratories. Various safety
issues were checked in the school science laboratory. Findings revealed that in some schools most safety
Researchjournali’s Journal of Public Health
Vol. 4 | No. 7 July | 2018
8
www.researchjournali.com
conditions were observed. However, some schools (18.89%, n=3) bench tops were not made of smooth and
long lasting material while 81.11%, n=15 had smooth bench tops. According to the laboratory safety standards,
bench surfaces should be made of materials that last for many years like ceramics which are resistant to ageing,
water, chemicals, heat and non –combustible since school science laboratories are expensive investment and
are expected to last for many years. During the surface lifetime in schools, they are subjected to a series of
abuses, both accidental and deliberate like chemical spills, they are wiped at the end of each practical lesson in
the interest of hygiene. Rough surfaces may be due to the fact that the right material was not used during
laboratory construction and may be because some schools are too old, wear and tear has taken place and
renovation has not been done. Chemical storage shelves in all the schools were not in proper order; compatible
chemical were close to each other which should not be the case, there should be no loose or damaged stoppers
and out of date chemical should be disposed of. Chemicals were not stored according to chemical category and
not in alphabetical order. This implied that the guideline had not been adhered which is against the safety
standards manual guideline that chemicals must be stored according to category in alphabetical order. In
general, MOE guideline had not been fully complied with in most schools. This implied that laboratory safety
is not complied to. Possibly, this may be due to lack of training/ information on safety issues by those
responsible for this and may be due to the fact that most schools are sub-County schools, are young and they
have not gotten enough funds to employ qualified laboratory assistants and some laboratories are operated by
different subject teachers leading to lack of proper order in the laboratories.
From the results obtained from this research, few laboratories were found to have fire extinguishers located
next to the exit while quite a number were located inside the building/ missing completely. This is contrary to
safety standards and guidelines as indicated in the Safety Standards Manual (Republic of Kenya, 2008) that fire
extinguishers should be functioning and based at each exit with fire alarms fitted at easily accessible points.
This could be due to fear of theft of gadgets. Fume chambers were observed blocked and even used as store for
books in some schools (11.11% of the schools) while the rest (98.99%, n=16) of the schools had fume chambers
in proper working conditions. This may be due to lack of information on health and safety standards in the
laboratories by school principals. Some of the schools (18.89%, n=3) were found having laboratory records of
injuries but rarely are school laboratory facilities and equipment inspected. This could be attributed for by the
fact that most injuries that occur in schools are minor and teachers try to neglect them. Again, some teachers
might be lacking information on such safety measures. This confirms sentiment by Elberlein (2009) study who
concluded that the Department of Education inadequately supported schools regarding assessment, monitoring
and training on school safety legislature. Migiro (2012) reported that there is lack of safety programs and
assessments in schools. Findings further concur with Muigai (2011) who reported that knowledge of the
MOEST safety guideline among the institution head teachers was poor.
Researchjournali’s Journal of Public Health
Vol. 4 | No. 7 July | 2018
9
www.researchjournali.com
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Authors would like to acknowledge with gratitude Kenyatta University Graduate School and School of Public Health for approving
the research and all the advices offered. Many thanks to Kitui County Education Board for allowing the research to be carried in their
institutions. Special thanks to study participants for providing valuable information, research assistants for their corporation and active
participation in data collection. Silent appreciation to fellow staff members especially in the science department for offering moral
support throughout the study.
4. REFERENCES
Alexander K& Alexander M.D (2002). Teachers and students’ Rights, 3rd edition. American Public School law. St. Paul, MN: West
publishing Company. Pp 866-903.
Anne B Davidson (1999). Contracting for Safety, the Science Teachers, Sept, pp 36-39.
Gay, L (1992). Educational Research Competence for Analysis and Application (4th edition) Macmillan, New York. Pp 185-225.
Government of Kenya (2008), Kenya Education Staff Institute (KESI), Education Management Module, Training Manual for Board of
Governors for secondary schools. Nairobi (2007).
KENPRO. (2010). Challenges Facing the Implementation of Free Primary Education in Kenya.
Loh, H.P. and Lyons, J. (2002). Process Equipment Cost Estimation, Report number: DEO/NETL-2002/1169, January, 2002.
Ministry of Education, (2008). Safety Standards Manual for Schools in Kenya. Nairobi: MOE
Ministry of Education Science and Technology (2014). Basic Education Statistics Booklet. Pp 5-28.
Mugenda, O.M & Mugenda. A.G (1999). Research methods. Quantitative and Qualitative approaches Nairobi, Kenya: ACTS Press. pp.
46 - 48.
Mugenda O.N and Mugenda, A.G. (2003). Research Methods: A Qualitative and Quantitative Approach. Nairobi: ACTS Press.
Mutulis, M. J. N & Oketch, J. (2009). Fire Emergency: A Proposed Contigency Plan for Kenya Prisons Service. In proceedings of the
Workshop on Institutional Fires: Risk Reduction, 25th June, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kakamega, Kenya,
ISBN 9966-779-10-8 PP 33-36
Omolo, D. O. & Simatwa, E. M. W. (2010). An Assessment of the Implementation of Safety Policies in Public Secondary Schools in
Kisumu East and West Districts, Kenya in Journal of Educational Research Vol.1(11) pp. 637- 649.
Onderi, H. & Makori, A. (2013). Training needs of BOG and PTA on School Leadership and Management in Kenya’s Secondary
Education: A Study of a District in the Kisii County of Kenya. Global Advanced Research Journal of Social Science Vol. 2(3): 064-
077.
Otieno, H. O. (2013). Effects of BOG’s Decision Making in the Management of Public Secondary Schools in Uriri District, Kenya.
International Journal of Academic Research Progressive Education and Development, 2(3): 2226-6348.
Otieno, S. (2010 November 11th). Ministry urged to start fire education. The Standard page 20.
Orodho A. J. (2009) Elements of Educational and Social science Research Methods: 2nd edition Kenezja Publisher, Maseno, Kenya.
Orodho, J. A & Kombo, D. K. (2006). Research Methods. Institute of Open Learning: Kenyatta University, Nairobi.
Orodho, J. A. (2004). Techniques of Writing Research Proposals and Reports in Education and Social Sciences: Masola Publishers,
Nairobi.
Republic of Kenya. (2001). Ministry of Education, Circular No. G9/1/169 of 10th April 2001.
Republic of Kenya (2011). Basic standard requirements of registration of educational and training institutions in the Ministry of
Education, pp 10.
Reuters, (2004). Indian School Fire kills 90 Children. Available on line: www.reuters.com
Researchjournali’s Journal of Public Health
Vol. 4 | No. 7 July | 2018
10
www.researchjournali.com
Singer, S.R., M.L. Hilton, and H. Schweingruber. 2005. America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. National Academies
Press, Washington, D.C. pp 168-254.
Stephenson, A.L., S.S. West, J.F. Westerlund, and N.C. Nelson. 2003. An analysis of incident/accident reports from the Texas Secondary
School Science Safety Survey, 2001. School Science and Mathematics Journal 103:6.
Stroud, L. M, Stallings, C & Korbusieki, T. J. (2007). Implementation of a Science Laboratory Safety Program in North Carolina
Schools. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, 12(1): 177-192.
The Independent. (2001, March 26th). Fifty Eight School Children Die in Kenyan Fire. Available on
web:www.independent.co.uk/news/world/Africa
Tromp, J. M. (1987). Instructional Leadership: What do Principals Say Prevents their Effectiveness in this Role? NASSP Bulletin, 71
(501): 89-92
UNICEF, (2009) Child Friendly Schools Manual. Pp 82.
Wattigney, W.A, M. Stat, M.S. Orr, and G.D. Williamson. (2008). Div of Health Studies, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry; Jones, S.E., Division of Adolescent and School Health, CDC. (2008, Nov 7). Hazardous Chemical Incidents in Schools---
United States 2002-2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Weekly, 57(44): pp1197-1200.
