The Hazards We Overlook: Two Emerging School Safety Concerns Every Leader Should Address
The Standard of Care in STEM Education | October 26, 2026
Schools are continually introducing new technologies to enhance learning and improve the student experience. However, innovation brings responsibilities that school leaders cannot afford to overlook.
Two developments from the past week highlight an important reality: Just because equipment is commonly used in schools does not mean its risks have been adequately assessed.
1. 3D Printers: The Hazards You Cannot See
On October 21, UL Research Institutes published new guidance addressing the potential health hazards associated with classroom 3D printers.
While these devices offer tremendous instructional opportunities, they can also release ultrafine particles and volatile organic compounds into the classroom environment.
UL's eight recommendations emphasize appropriate ventilation, filtration, cleaning, limiting exposure, and personal hygiene.
But there is another critical component: employee training.
Do teachers understand the potential exposure hazards? Have facilities personnel evaluated the ventilation? Are there written operating procedures? Do employees know what to do when equipment malfunctions?
Purchasing a 3D printer without evaluating its operating environment is not a comprehensive safety strategy.
2. E-Bikes and E-Scooters: A Growing School Safety Challenge
Across the country, school districts are reconsidering policies involving e-bikes, e-scooters, and other Li-ion-powered transportation devices.
In Connecticut, Branford school leaders are considering restrictions. In Illinois, Township High School District 211 has implemented a prohibition on student e-bikes and e-scooters on district property.
The concerns extend beyond transportation safety.
Where are these devices stored? Are they indoors? Near exits? Are students charging them during the school day?
More importantly, what happens when a battery begins swelling, overheating, hissing, or smoking?
Employees should never be expected to approach or move a battery undergoing thermal runaway. They need training to recognize warning signs, remove people from danger, and activate appropriate emergency procedures.
The Standard of Care: Policies Are Not Enough
These two issues may appear unrelated, but they share an important connection.
The Standard of Care requires more than recognizing that hazards exist. It requires appropriate action.
The Duty to Instruct emphasizes training employees and students. The Duty to Maintain addresses equipment and facilities. The Duty to Take Precautions requires reasonable measures to reduce foreseeable risks. The Duty to Enforce reinforces the importance of consistent implementation.
A written policy that employees do not understand or cannot implement provides limited protection.
School leaders should ask three questions:
Have we identified and evaluated the hazards?
Have we established appropriate safeguards and procedures?
Have we trained employees and verified that they can implement those procedures?
Final Thought
The next school safety incident may not begin in a chemistry laboratory. It may begin with a 3D printer operating in a poorly ventilated classroom or a damaged Li-ion battery stored near an exit.
Proactive leadership means recognizing these risks before an emergency occurs.
Does your school or district need help evaluating STEM safety practices, developing Li-ion battery procedures, or training employees?
Kevin Doyle Consulting, LLC provides professional development, safety assessments, and Standard of Care support for schools, districts, organizations, and businesses.
Safety is not simply a policy. It is a professional responsibility.
Comments