Air traffic control, U.S. nuclear-powered facilities, naval aircraft carriers, and highly organized enterprises are classified by the military as high reliability organizations (HROs). HROs are so named because people who hold these positions in the workforce are trained by instructors committed to “failure-free” operating systems. Instruction is based on procedures that provide for constant reinforcement and redundant systems. The staff is authorized to observe the system and act on small breakdowns before critical parts are endangered. One of the hallmarks of the training module is that the staff are carefully recruited, extensively trained, and empowered to assess a situation and bring in the expert (regardless of rank) to correct it before serious problems arise. Does this sound like an organization committed to the education of our students? (Somewhat.) However, education has been tagged as a “failure-tolerant” system.

Not to disparage our educational system, but when comparing it to military training, we’re not in the same league. The military has a captive audience for other reasons than the sheer joy of learning. Also, common goals are more easily identified in a military setting than in the diversified environment of the classroom. However, we can learn from military trainers that appropriately prepared teachers—those who are allowed to make decisions in a timely manner—will foster and cultivate a learning environment that is conducive to an empowered staff. An example is Linda Ford, this year’s Conant Award winner. A sense of collegiality is the advice she offers for both new teachers and seasoned veterans. The whole interview is really a must-read. You will come away with an insight into her world that will energize you.

Besides empowering teachers (well-trained classroom experts) to produce a highly reliable curriculum, we must also provide our trainees (students) with the skills necessary to succeed. Hull (1) stated that “the average student seems coolly indifferent, even cynical, toward the idea of learning” (p 27) and that “what needs to be cultivated in students is a healthy recognition of their deficiency” ( p 29). These comments certainly support the notion that education is a “failure- tolerant” system. However, there is something that we can do about this. This issue of the Journal is one of my favorites of the year. It is loaded with wonderful ideas and classroom exercises that give you fun ways of challenging your students. If you can capture the imagination of a student, the cynical attitude mentioned above will disappear.

Highlights for April

In this issue, there are more than 15 articles that present games, challenging puzzles, and novel approaches to enhancing the chemistry curriculum. Check out the new faces of organic chemistry—my personal favorite is the Nano Texan. Play cards with a deck highlighting organic functional groups. If you need even more organic fun, see the spiral puzzle. You might also want to spend a few entertaining minutes vicariously living through Sherlock Holmes’s latest case, or delve into more forensics when you try to solve the mystery of the crash of flight 1023. For use with our younger audience, you might want to try the Elemental ZOO or practice terminology solving word-search games. (Here are three: one, two, three). Other interesting puzzles include the use of letter matrixes and The Name Game. If you need a new twist on building models, you will really enjoy The Molecular Model Game. Also, check out the online trivia game regarding laboratory safety. If you ever need a good resource to document why we do classroom demos then you need to read the article on using demonstrations.

This issue is full of activities and ideas that are dedicated to enhancing the classroom with engaging education. Have fun with it!

Spring Meetings

Two important conferences are imminent: I hope to see you in New Orleans at the National ACS meeting March 23–27, 2003, or at NSTA in Philadelphia (March 27–29, 2003).

Literature Cited

1. Hull, K. Thought & Action 2001, 28, 19–31.