Final Report Safe Schools Conference Indonesia Jakarta Dec 2010

Safe School Natinal Conference, 20th-21st December 2010 1

Jakarta, 20th-21st DeCember 2010


P R E F A C E

All praises be unto the Almighty for the accomplishment of the National Conference of Safe Schools report.

Safe School National Conference, organized by Plan Indonesia and National Agency for Disaster Management, Indonesia Ministry of National Education (Kemendiknas RI) and UNESCO on 20th-21st December 2010 is part of the ”I million safe schools” conference, launched on July 2010. Plan Indonesia is one of international organization actively involved in creating safe

schools and hospital in Indonesia. The conference is hoped to fresh-inspire all stakeholders previously provided the commitment to create a safe schools in Indonesia. Therefore, an on-going partnership and collaboration are crucial to make the objectives of the campaign come to pass. The conference would not have had taken place without the support of several parties. Plan is grateful for Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana (BNPB) –National Agency for Disaster Management, Indonesia Ministry of National Education (Kemendiknas RI),UNESCO, and the Skala Community for their preparation support in organizing the event. Plan would also say thank you to all DRR facilitators and Plan Indonesia PUM who facilitated discussion processes. Our sincerest appreciatin as well for all the source persons for shairng their knowledge and experiences for all participants of the event. We are aware to the fact that the event needs development in many areas. We welcome any feedback and inputs from many parties for the betterment of future program activities. Finally, we hope to see the report useful for all stakeholdres to voice out the safe school entity in Indonesia.

Jakarta, January 2011 Reviewed by DRR team Plan Indonesia Vanda Lengkong

DRM Program Manager

”A safe school is a condition where

school and the neighbouring

community posses adequate capacity

in dealing with emergency.”

Claudia, Sikka Children Forum

member


T A B L E O F C O N T E N T

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

X.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

Preface................................................................................................................................

Table of Content...............................................................................................................

Summary...........................................................................................................................

Introduction.....................................................................................................................

Objective................................................................................................................................

Output………………………………………………………………………...........................................

Activity Theme……………………………………………………………………………............................

Activities………………………………………………………………………...........................................

Participants…………………………………………………………………………...........................................

Resource Persons ………………………………………………………………........................................

Time and Venue ...............................................................................................................

Facilitators and Moderators...........................................................................................

Activity Implementation .................................................................................................

Group Discussion Output ...............................................................................................

Conclusions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Recommendation .............................................................................................................

Media Coverage ...............................................................................................................

Closing ...............................................................................................................................

2

3

4

6

7

8

8

8

8

9

9

9

10

21

23

24

25

25


S u m m a r y Safe School National Conference on 20-21 December 2010 is attended by approximately 200 participants (on the first day) and 90 people on the second day. The event is organized based on partnership amongst Plan Indonesia, Indonesia Ministry of National Education (Kemendiknas RI), National Agency for Disaster Management, and UNESCO. The conference was organized at the Kartika Candra Hotel and opened by Deputy for BNPB Prevention and preparedness, Ir. Sugeng Triutomo, DESS. Deputy to National Education Minister, Prof. Dr. Fasli Djalal, M.Si also attended the conference and presented brief presentation about Kemendiknas commitment regarding disaster reduction education in schools and how to create safe schools. The event’s objectives are: 1). As a sharing forum for experience and learning to different stakeholders who already implement the school-based disaster prevention program. 2). Conduct mapping for organisation who already work/promote the safe school. 3). Synchronize our preceptions about basic principles and concepts for safe schools 4).formulate safe school indicators/standards for Indonesian context. The event carried the theme ”My Safe School, My Confident Learning”. The message behind the theme is to mainstream the fact that there are still many schools in Indonesia are prone to disaster. The condition is worsen by the risk of having physically-poor school buildings which do not meet strong buildings’ standard. Thus, Plan wants to encourage stakeholders, epecially in education sector to create safe school environment which support learning process and complement students achievements. The number of participants targeted in the conference is more or less 150, including organizers and source persons. The participants represented governments (ministry/organizer and Education Agency in district level), International NGO, local NGO, donor agencies, universities, coorporate/bussiness, schools, individuals, and Plan Indonesia’s staffs. In implementation, the participant quantity of the first day surpassed the expected numbers of 200, while on the second day, they shrinked to 90 people. Most attendees from Jakarta did not manage to come on the second day. As much as 16 resource persons presented their material. At least 3 amongst them were selected through call for papers, while the majority of them were personally invited by Plan. The resource person’s background varied from the government, colleges, donor agency, International NGOs, Local.National NGOs, Plan Indonesia and their partners, individuals, and children. Not only that, one facilitator from SEEDS India, Dr. R. Kuberan were present to share his experience in developing safe school models in India. First day were opened by a keynote speech from Deputy of BNPB Disaster Prevention and Preparedness, Ir. Sugeng Triutomo, DESS, including 2 panel discussions and one group


discussion done in a row. In Pnel Discussion I, with 4 resource persons, namely Dr. R. Kuberan, SEEDS-India (Safe School Model: Experience from India), Ardito M. Kodijat, UNESCO (Build Disaster-Proof Schools), Iwan Gunawan, PhD, World Bank (Mainstreaming Safe School in Schools’ Management and Rehabilitation Program), and Ninil RM. Jannah, from the Disaster Education Consorsium (Disaster-Prepared Schools and the Challenges in Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction). Panel discussion was moderated by, Avianto Amri from Plan Asean Regional Office (ARO) Panel Discussion II presented 2 resource persons, namely Yanti Sri Yulianti (The Kerlip Community) who presented how to create safe school and As Ari Wahyu Utomo with his presentation about Elementary Education Sytem Contribution to Develop Disaster-Prepared Schools in Indonesia. This panel session was moderated by Amin Magatani (Plan Indonesia). Group discussion for cross-sectoral issues is done in paralel with 5 topics: 1. Media role in Promoting Safe School with resource person Dandy Dwi Leksono (Media practitioner); 2. PRB Education Urgency for toddlers, with resource person Yusra Tebe (KYPA), and Akbar K.

Setiawan (LPM UNY) with presentation about Disaster-Prepared School Model Development through Disaster Risk Reduction Integration in Curriculum. 3. Learn Media Effectivity to Mainstream PRB in Schools, with resource persons Wijang Wijanarko from Griya Mandiri Organization (Jogja) and Ni Ketut Ambara Putri Tjatera (IDEP-Bali); 4. Disaster Prepared School Development Experience with resource person Enos Ndapareda (FORSSIGANA-Sikka), and Maldo Vero Oktavia (KOGAMI); and 5. Child-Friendly School Building with resource person Elliza Paparia (Plan Indonesia). In panel discussion III on the second day, resource persons provided presentation were: 1. Dr.Krishna S. Pribadi (PMB ITB) about Review Tool for Safe School Structure; 2. Dr. Trevor

Dhu (AIFDR) with Safe School Risk Review and 3. Avianto Amri (Plan ARO) who presented about Education Minimum Standard on Emergency Situation. Amin Magatani moderated the discussion. Quoting from the result of the discussion, there are 5 (five) aspects of safe school concepts, namely: 1. Disaster-safe location: including all related things about choosing a location for risk-safe

schools. There should be some consideration for a safe school, amongst all: open space, distance from thread point, easy access, near public service facilities, water, electricity, and communication feasibility. In addition to that, safe school requires disaster management procedure available.

2. Knowledge, attitude, and behaviour: this aspect includes school community actions both

pre, during, or post disaster. To increase knowledge and prepare appropriate attitude to reduce disaster risks, several actions should be done, for example: workshop/seminar, regular simulation, communication network development, risk management trainings (P3K, HVCA, emergency actions), integrate activities to school curriculum, mainstreaming through students’ orientation), local content school subject, exhange study, etc.


3. Building Structure; safe school building should meet the following criterias: strong and solid, design appropriateness meets local wisdom, schoold building is compatible with thread characteristics, all main structure in connected with building technical standard, quality material and is build according to excellent procedure and trained workers.

4. Class design and layout setting; this aspect is related to ideal classroom management to

reduce disaster risks. One of the key points are: each class should have 2 doors exiting outside, maximum capacity of 30 children each class, the distance between tables and chairs should be 0,5 meters minimum, cupboards to be placed far from the doors and should stand next to the wall, as with any displays, it should not made of glasses, and to provide evacution signs inside and outside class, etc.

5. Facilities and service support: According to Ministry of National Education’s policy No.

24/2007 about facilities and service support standard, minimum criterias to support learning processes are: 1) Schools should have education tool and media, books, and other other learning source, information technology and other mandatory tools for schools; 2) Facilities minimum criterias consist of soil, buildings, classrooms, and mandatory energy instalation for schools/faith-based schools.

At the end, this Safe School National Conference put out several recommendations: 1) The Special Alocated Fund for safe schools should be managed locally instead through tender/third party; 2) Develop a team to start and finalise advocacy process and to sinergize schools actions with Disaster Education Consortium; 3) The government is expected to add up to the fund of school rehabilitation in districts considered ”less-safe”; 4) School community capacity buidling; 5) CSR and private company resource mobilization; 5) and blueprint for National Action Plan for Safe School.


I. INTRODUCTION

Disaster Risk Reduction Education or Pendidikan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana (PRB) for children in Indonesia is a necessity. Based on Disaster Management Policy no 24/2007 article 26 particularly states that all individual owns the rights to education, training, and skill building reagarding Disaster Education. The increasing number of children casualties from natural disasters encouraged UN ISDR to throw disaster-management campaign, starting from schools. Announced in 2006, Indonesia has been one active participating country in the campaign. The One million School Safety and Hospital was releasedto see schools and hospitals, particularly in disaster-prone areas to build their capacity in handling disasters. This links to infrastructure, human resource, financial, and other competencies to develop safe schools and hospitals. Indonesian government under The Ministry of People Welfare Coordination also announced the One Million School Safety and Hospitals since 29th July 2010 where 1000 schools and hospitals were targeted for disaster safety. It is unfortunate to see poor concrete actions to manifest the commitment. Safe school concept as campaigned is a school which provides guarantee to education, health, safety, and security of the students and its communtiy. It also includes a community who commited to safe culture where emergency actions are widely responded. No less important is the requirement to have a reliable school building against disaster In Indonesia, the inception of such initiatives started far before UN ISDR campaign. Many NGOs, including Plan Indonesia had been promoting safe school model. Plan itself, as International humanitarian organization had conducted child-centred disaster management mainstreaming since 2007. This is one of Plan’s commitment to provide information access about disaster management to children and to promote its role in disaster reduction actions. To amplify the already existing initiatives and to compile all ideal concepts about safe school, Plan Indonesia organized the National Conference of Safe School. To sinergize the commitment, Plan work in collaboration with National Agency for Disaster Management or Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana (BNPB), the Indonesian Ministry of National Education or Kementrian Pendidikan Nasional (Kemendiknas) Republik Indonesia, Disaster Education Consortium or Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana (KPB), and UNESCO.

II. O B J E C T I V E

1. As sharing experience forum and learning for all parties who already conducted school-based disaster risk-reduction actions.

2. Conduct mapping for organisation who already work/promote safe schools 3. Synchronize our preceptions about basic principles and concepts for safe schools 4. Formulate safe school indicators/standards in Indonesian context

III. O U T P U T


1. Develop formation team to finalize safe-school standard which involves the government

representatives, NGOs, universities, and coorporate 2. Safe school indicators appropriate for Indonesian context.

IV. A C T I V I T Y T H E M E The theme of the conference is ”My Safe School, My Convinient Learning”. Plan is disseminating the issue to all stakeholders, especially in education sectors to create safe school environment to support taching-learning atmosphere, which at the end will enhance students’s academic achivement. To translate the big theme, organizers gave participants to decide their presentation title. The themes are:

V. A C T I V I T I E S 1. Pre Conference Activity

The Pre Conference Activity is done through call for papers, providing space for all experienced participants to develop a review paper presented at the end of the conference. Call for papers was released on 5 November 2010 and was closed on 5 December 2010. 2. Conference Acitivity

It is a forum to share experience between participants and safe-school practitioners in forms of paper presentation, parallel discussion, and group discussion. There were also children performance, music performance, and photos and books exhibition.

VI. P A R T I C I P A N T

The number of participants targeted in the conference is more or less 150, including organizer and source persons. The participants represented governments (ministry/organizer and Education Agency in district level), International NGO, local NGO, donor agencies, universities, coorporate/bussiness, schools, individuals, and Plan Indonesia’s staffs. In implementation, the participant quantity of the first day surpassed the expected numbers of 200, while on the second day, they shrinked to 90 pepole. Most attendees from Jakarta did not manage to come on the second day, while all participants from outside Jakarta attended the whole event.

VII. R E S O U R C E P E R S O NS Numbers of resource persons with different background participated in the event. Some resource persons were selected through call for papers, while some were chosen according to their portfolios.


Below is the resource person names, next to their presented topics:

1. Prof. Dr. Fasli Djalal, Msi (Deputy to Indonesia Ministry of National Education) 2. Ir. Sugeng Triutomo, DESS (Deputy to BNPB Prevention and Preparedness Agency) 3. Iwan Gunawan, PhD (World Bank) 4. Dr. Trevor Dhu (AIFDR) 5. Dr. R. Kuberan, (SHEEDS-India) 6. Dr. Ir. Krishna S. Pribadi (ITB Disaster Mitigation Centre) 7. Yanti Sri Yulianti (KERLiP Community) 8. Avianto Amri (Plan International - ARO) 9. Elliza Paparia (Plan Indonesia) 10. Enos Ndapareda dan Stevanus (FORSIGANA-Maumere) 11. Ninil R. Jannah (Disaster Education Consortium) 12. Ardito M. Kodijat (UNESCO) 13. Yusra Tebe (Yayasan KYPA) 14. Maldo Vero Oktavia (KOGAMI) 15. Ni Ketut Ambara Puteri Tjatera (IDEP Organization) 16. As Ari Wahyu Utomo

VIII. T I M E & V E N U E Conference was organized at The Hotel Kartika Candra Hotel, Jakarta from 20th – 21st December 2010.

IX. FACILITATORS and MODERATORS

Facilitators came from Plan Indonesia internal, namely DRM Plan Indonesia team, Plan Indonesia DRR Facilitator from numbers of Unit Program (PU Rembang, PU Grobogan, PU Sikka, PU Kefa, PU Lembata, and PU Dompu) and Program Unit Manager PU and Program Unit Manager PU Kefamenanu. Moderating the conference was Plan Indonesia’s Vanda Lengkong dan Amin Magatani and Avianto Amri (Plan ARO)

X. ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTATION

A. Call for Papers

There were only few sent their review paper to be presented at the Safe School National Conference. As recorded, there were only 4 paper entries arrived at organizers’ desk. Amongst them 3, were chosen to be presented as below:

1. Disaster-Prepared School Model Development through Disaster Risk Reduction Integration in Curriculum by Akbar K. Setiawan (LPM Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta)


2. Elementary Education System Contribution to Develop Disaster-Prepared Schools in Indonesia by As Ari Wahyu Utomo (individual)

3. “The Mouse Deer Initiative” Games or “Inisiatif Si Kancil (IKC): “Learning and Playing” as media learning for Disaster Hazard Preparedness for Children by Wijang Wijanarko (Griya Mandiri Organization)

B. Safe School National Conference

Day One, Monday, 20th December 2010

Opening

The Conference opened at 9.00 sharp according to planned. Vanda Lengkong, the DRM program Manager delivered opening speech to all paticipants, followed by Bapak Ardito M. Kodijat, DRR Coordinator UNESCO. Plan Indonesia welcoming speech, Sudiyo, Program Manager Education Plan Indonesia delivered the speech in substitute to Country Director, John McDonough. The opening was conducted by Bapak Ir. Sugeng Triutomo, DESS, Deputy to BNPB Prevention and Preparedness Agency, in substitute for BNPB Head, Dr. Syamsul Maarif, Msi. Vanda Lengkong (organizer):

▪ Explained about Plan Indonesia as an international organization commited to disaster management in Indonesia, and the reason behind Safe School National Conference.

▪ Participants are from the government representatives, teacher, students, social foundations, and media. Plan also invited local partners such as Lingkar, KYPA, Kogami, YLI, YTBI, Pili Green Network, etc. There are also participants from Plan Program Units like: Rembang, Grobogan, Sikka, Lembata, Kefamenanu, Dompu, and Soe; and other regions like Aceh, Yogyakarta, Padang, Kupang, Bandung and Bogor.

Sudiyo (Plan Indonesia):

▪ Disasters hit various part in Indonesia contributed to massive impact in teaching-learning process, even if the individual/chlidren are not counted amongst direct casualties.

▪ The conference provided rooms to share criterias of safe schools as inputs for the governments and schools.

Ardito M. Kodijat (UNESCO):

▪ The objective if safe school development is to raise people’s awareness and create safe school for everybody. This has grown to be an urgent requirement and should not be postponed.

▪ Safe school implementation is everybody’s responsibility. Ir. Sugeng Triutomo, DESS (BNPB):

▪ The safe school and hospital campaign was launched in July 2010. UN ISDR had done this before in Manila, Phillipines and wish to have this spreaded to other countries.


▪ Disasters should not stop learning activities.

▪ BNPB and Kemendiknas RI had agreed to insert the Disaster Risk Reduction to school curriculum.

Opening then continued by the performance of 15 Elementary students from PILI Green Network and YTBI. The performed the communication network simulation between schools in Bogor and Jakarta, as part of early identification and preparedness towards flood. This simulation shows how children can identify risks, comunícate the risk and become the change agents in schools and community. Keynote Speech

Ir. Sugeng Triutomo, DESS gave presentation about National Policy about Disaster Risk Reduction, as follow:

▪ The government and local administrative responsibility in Disaster Risk Reduction (PRB)

▪ PRB National Action Plan

▪ Work Scheme for PRB

▪ PRB scope of work

▪ Five Prioritiesfor Hyogo Action Scheme

▪ PRB Platform

▪ There should be a guideline to raise concern about the importance of developing safe schools, especially in areas prone to disasters.

▪ PRB is a scheme to be mainstreamed to all disaster managers in Indonesia. Safe school is another form of PRB implementation which should involve all parties.

Diskusi Panel 1

Moderator : Avianto Amri (Plan ARO) Resource persons :

1. Dr. R. Kuberan, SHEEDS-India 2. Ardito M. Kodijat, UNESCO 3. Iwan Gunawan, PhD, World Bank 4. Ninil RM. Jannah, Disaster Education Consortium

Dr. R. Kuberan, SEEDS-India : Safe school model, an experience from India

▪ Indonesia and India has many in common: there are many schools and children and they often suffer from earthquakes.

▪ Safe school programs are already developed in India. This is the result of knowing how disaster risk should be taught as early as possible. If school buildings are strong enough, then it will be realiable and sage for adults and children.


▪ Safe school does not only cover strong building; instead, it also includes security system seen in windows and doors.

▪ SEEDS just developed a training and partnership with schools for disaster management. Children are trained to the marginal levels, like in markets.

▪ All parties should aware that disaster hazards in Indonesia is everybody’s problem, this is to encourage holistic solution.

Ardito M. Kodijat, UNESCO : Build Disaster-Prepared Schools

▪ There are numbers of disasters which devastated classrooms in parts of the world, amongst all, Aceh (2004), Pakistan (2005), Jogja (2006), China (2008), Padang (2009), and Mentawai (2009).

▪ School children are the most prone to the hazard.

▪ Disasters take place during school hours risk quality casualties. To reduce this, a commitment to build strong school is crucial. To mainstream this, campaigns of safe school and hospital were organized in Manila, Phillipine on 8 April 2010 and 28 Juli 2010 in Jakarta, Indonesia.

▪ The 1 million Safe Schools and Hospitals global campaign is one part of UNISDR activity related to World Disaster Reduction Campaign entitled “Building resilient cities, addressing urban risk.”

▪ Safe school is : i) A learning environment where all children’s safety, security, and health is guaranteed all the time; ii) Strong structures and will not collapsed during hazards; iii) A community who is commited to safe culture, risk-aware, and quickly responded to emergency and hazards; iv) Only suffers minor hurdles during hazard, thus, provide safe environment to its students.

Ninil RM. Jannah, Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana : Sekolah Siaga Bencana dan

Tantangan Pengarusutamaan Pendidikan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana

▪ Mendiknas or the Ministry of National Education policy No. 70a/MPN/SE/2010 about Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reducation in Schools has been disbursed to education agency and area heads.

▪ PRB implementation mainstreaming strategy in schools are already conducted.

▪ Provincial and distric/city officials are encouraged to support the strategy of mainstreaming, along with monitoring and evaluation in schools.

▪ Four (4) indicators of Disaster Prepared Schools are Behaviour and Action, School Policy, Preparedness Plan, and Resource Mobilization


Iwan Gunawan, PhD, World Bank : Mainstreaming Safe Schools in Schools

Rehabilitation and Management Program

• Safe school is i) A school with awareness of any disaster hazard in its area; ii) school who implements safety procedure; iii) School building are designed by considering disaster risk and, iv) the community in schools hold regular drill for disaster

• PRB steps schools can organise; Implementing risk audit; strength enhancement plan and other preparedness activities, and implementation if the strenght enhancement.

• Another opportunity to build safe school through school-based management and rehabilitation is through BOS or School Operational Fund and DAK (Dana Alokasi Khusus or Special Allocated Funds) 1. School Operational Fund Program

– Reach more than 200,000 schools – Empower the School-Based Management role – Focus on planning and funding for school operacional activities It is potential to insert PRB in schools activity plan, including: – School Self Evaluation or Evaluasi Diri Sekolah (EDS) – School Development Plan and School Work Program

2. Education DAK – Provide adequate investment fund – The money is beneficial to facilities building, book provisions, and tools availability – Schools do this under the supervision of Local Administration and the community

3. Next step is to add PRB in DAK Menu;

▪ Issuing PRB as national priority

▪ Adding disaster risk as criteria in determining DAK allocation.

▪ Prepare building reconstruction as part of Rehabilitation Package

▪ Adopting PRB technical standard for school rehabilitation

Deputy to the Ministry of National Education, Prof. Dr. Fasli Djalal, M.Si, said that to create safe schools, the Indonesian Government has allocated IDR 1,3 billion for schools rehabilitations, especially in disaster prone areas and to fix those which had been damaged.

Panel Discussion 2

Moderator : Amin Magatani (Plan Indonesia) Resource person :

1. Yanti Sri Yulianti (KERLip community) 2. As Ari Wahyu Utomo

Yanti Sri Yulianti :

▪ KERLIP focuses on curriculum advocay and from there tries to apply the disaster-prepared schools.

▪ Provide conducive atmosphere in macro level.


▪ Developing partnership to bring out the safe school culture

▪ Media has a strategic position to promote safe school, like through facebook, twitter, etc. This can be done to handle challenges in mainstreaming informatio about safe schools.

As Ari Wahyu Utomo : Elementary Education Sytem Contribution to Develop Disaster-Prepared Schools in Indonesia

▪ Disaster-Prepared School is a place where education about disasters are available and is sustainable, where simulation practice takes place regularly and is safe in terms of physical design

▪ To create this school, we need policy, trainings, school supervisors’ involvement, and discussion with all head teachers and district representatives.

▪ We need to obtain the spirit to provide education for all and how schools can get access to such information about disaster education.

Cross Cutting Issue Divided into 5 themes, each one was facilitated by resourse persons who shared their experience and knowledge related to the topic. Each group consisted of 20-35 participants. Group1. Media role in Promoting Safe School

Resource person : Dandi Dwi Laksono Facilitator : Trinirmalaningrum

▪ Ponder the value of “bad news is always good news”

▪ Good, graphic, images are the first checked point for journalist. This is because society always seek for sensantion.

▪ Our media still use ratings as indicator, selling for printing media, and hits for online.

▪ Media should also made coverage about local wisdom, next to the disaster.

▪ A good story from media requires momentum. For example, why evacuation eventually leads to more death victims

▪ Journalist needs trainings on how to cover earthquake resistant homes.

▪ To create good, educative news needs big budget. If any advantages occur, it is used for different investation.

Recommendation

1. NGO need to take place in this platform, how to put issues to the surface and involve in in-

trend issues. 2. Find access to media through great content. 3. Children and religious affiliated issues are interesting for media 4. Create attractive events, integrate education and entertainment. 5. If funding is available, purchase one slot in the newspaper and create appealing coverage. 6. The safe school issue is integral becuase it links to children’s interest. Sustainable campaign

is required.


Group 2. PRB Urgent Education for Toddlers

Resource person : 1. Yusra Tebe (KYPA), 2. Akbar K. Setiawan (UNY) Facilitator : Vanda Lengkong Yusra Tebe (KYPA Organization-Jogja)

▪ Toddlers easily absorb messages

▪ They cannot decide what’s best for them, they need adults (parents and teachers) to show them this

▪ Methods use to cascade this message is playing and direct practice as an effective tool for information.

▪ Risk Reduction and preparedness should always be done in kindergartens and engange different parties.

▪ Disaster education needs to focus on early-aged children

Akbar K. Setaiawan (LPM UNY)

▪ Disaster reduction integration with school curriculum can be done with specific strategy though learning approach and peer-mentoring. Information cascaded by peers are often more effectively transffered.

▪ In teaching PRB, work in affective, cognitive, and physcomotoric areas

▪ Use fun learning, develop active and innovative learning

▪ Teachers admitted their lack of understanding of disaster education material and PRB

▪ Pedadogically, teachers do not apply active learning method

▪ Socially, teachers need to improve their communicationwith schools’ neighbourhood

▪ Personally, each individual should improve their awareness and responsibility in disaster preparedness

Group 3 : Learning Media Effectivity to Mainstream PRB in Schools

Resource person : 1. Ni Ketut Ambara Putri (IDEP organization) 2. Wijang Wijanarko (Griya Mandiri organization) Facilitator : Amin Magatani Ni Ketut Ambara Putri (IDEP organization)

▪ PRB education is important for children as they are the most prone to disaster hazard, they need to be prepared about emergency actions. Parents will also feel more secure knowing their children are prepared to confront hazard.

▪ Why PRB should start from school? Because school is the learning centre equipped with dynamic system which will bring out new generation with safe-culture awareness. Schools


are also often used as evacuation point during hazards. Moreover, PRB education is taken as investation by securing human beings from threads.

▪ There are 3 ways for children to absorb informations: – Through visual sense – Through auditorial sense – Through kinesthetic sense

▪ Children’s comprehension is far easily obtained through oral and verbal activites. To put it in percentage is 80%. Meanwhile, reading only contributes to 1%, 20 % is from listening, 30% from what they see, 50% from what they see and hear, and 70% is from seeing and speaking

▪ Appropriate media: Books, Comics, Booklets, Stickers, Cartoons, Dools, Posters, Kid’s Activity books, Educational Games, songs, puppet shows.

Media Advantage Disadvantage

▪ Film ▪ Attracts children ▪ Complicated process, requires special equipment

▪ Radio/ TV broadcasting

▪ Wide reach ▪ Requires good resource person

▪ Brocures, comics, posters, stickers.

▪ Dynamic topic, easily updated

▪ Printing facilities, good design,

▪ Inappropriate for the illiterates

▪ Children’s Activity books

▪ Attractive, drills children’s creativity

▪ Complicated process, big costs a fortune

▪ Games ▪ Attractive ▪ Only for small group

▪ Puppet show, songs ▪ Appropriate for local culture

▪ Not always available

▪ powerpoint ▪ Develop easily ▪ Requires extra devices

▪ If the targeted groups are varied, it is recommended: to choose the media according to age group, education, culture, and regularly evaluate the media exposure.

▪ It is important to announce the existing media

▪ Community involvement in media development

▪ Conduct draft trial before making it public Wijang Wijanarko (Yayasan Griya Mandiri) : “The Mouse Deer Initiative” Games or

“Inisiatif Si Kancil (IKC): “Learning and Playing” as media learning for Disaster Hazard

Preparedness for Children

▪ Children are the ones most prone to disaster, thus, a strategy should be developed to cope with this through disaster risk education.


▪ IKC program is developed in Student’s Garden, Budi Mulya, and is implemented in the community, for teachers, and even has been proposed to the national education agency as curriculum.

▪ The initial idea of IKC came as Jogja earthquake hit in 2006. The community seemed to overcome their past memory quickly. This encouraged community leaders to work in partnership with Universities in Hyogo, Jalan, in developing a learning tool about earthquake. In Japan, this games uses frog as its symbol, whereas in Indonesia it turns out to be a mouse deer.

▪ Another example of games designed by Yayasan Griya Mandiri are: The All-Knowing Hall, Emergency Bag, The Mouse Deer Go-Cart, Mouse Deer Trace Map, Mouse Deer Doctor, Mouse Deer Shelter, Water Race, Mouse Deer Kampong, Mouse Deer Snake and Ladders, etc.

Summary :

1. There should be adequate room for creativity to improve games as information media

about PRB for children. 2. Media development should consider age target to ensure well-comprehended

messages. 3. Every games requires a moral story for the participating children. 4. Be sensitive with children with special needs 5. Take children into account whenever designing games and media tool for them.

Group 4 : Experiences in Building Disaster-Prepared Schools

Resource person : 1. Enos Ndapareda & Stevanus (FORSIGANA Sikka), 2. Maldo Vero Oktavia (KOGAMI) Facilitator : Betti Siagian (UNESCO) Enos Ndapareda (Forsigana)

▪ FORSSIGANA (Forum Pelajar Sikka Siaga Bencana) or Sikka’s Students Forum for Disaster Preparedness was first established on Maret 2nd, 2009 as the result of motivating training for disaster preparedness organized by COMPRESS LIPI and UNESCO. It started with only 20 members from 10 high schools in Maumere and expanded to 31. FORSSIGANA works in partnership with TAGANA, FAS, BPBD and Plan Unit in Sikka

▪ Activities done by FORSSIGANA are: Simulation and Training in Beru and Nangameting Elementary Schools, and through local radio broadcast.

▪ Results expected from FORSSIGANA activities are: 1. Teachers and Students to be aware of disaster-preparedness 2. In Maumere 1 Junior High School, disaster preparedness is already integrated as local-

wised subject. 3. FORSSIGANA should consider it sustainability 4. FORSSIGANA capacity development and trainings 5. There is a moving paradigm, from responsive to preventive, in school community

regarding disaster hazards. 6. FORSSIGANA gains acknowledgement in Maumere


▪ FORSSIGANA faces the following challenges in developing disaster-prepared schools: 1. Implementation challenges as all FORSSIGANA members are school children 2. Support absence from the District Education Agency to build Disaster Prepared Schools 3. Lack of attention from teacher and students and few participation 4. Old prespective still holds major influence 5. FORSSIGANA is often underestimated by teachers and students 6. FORSSIGANA financial challenges that preparedness socializations are postponed in

schools 7. FORSSIGANA doesn’t have law force yet 8. So many schools do not apply preparedness policy

Maldo Vero Oktavia (KOGAMI) : Experiences in Building Disaster-Prepared Schools

▪ Focal points, teachers, school committe, school guards, class supervisor, local government and the community should get involved in program socialization in schools.

▪ Program sharing and evaluation with stakeholders

▪ Take religion teachers on board

▪ Take into account emotional approach to ensure commitment in future implementation

▪ Group regeneration is necessary to ensure sustainibility

▪ Conduct coordination and surveys in schools

▪ Create interesting media tool to draw students’ attention to complete the program

▪ Students will be more encouraged if the material is easy for them to practice

▪ Insert the group activity as school extracurricular activity

▪ Put the activity in education curriculum

▪ Program implementation should be in line with school calendar in the area

▪ Coordinate with education agency heads before using school operational fund

▪ One of the challenges here is funding and lack of commitment, if not event schedule which does not fit the school calendar.

Group 5 : Guideline for Safe Schools for Children

Resource person : Elliza Paparia (Plan Indonesia) Moderator : Galuh Ruspitawati

▪ School is a formal institution which automatically provide assistance, teachings, and trainings in helping students to improve their moral, spiritual, intelectual, emotional, and social potential

▪ Some reasons related to children’s safety and disasters are: 1. Children suffer the most when disaster or accidents take place 2. Teachers’ lack of understanding about disaster risk reduction 3. Minimum guideline and teaching material about disaster 4. Fragile constructions against disaster


▪ Safe school is not only a place where children’s rights are taken into account, but also where their rights for security, health, play, fun stuff during learning, protection from dangers, freedom to speak their minds and opinions, and making decision according to their capacity are met.

▪ Safe school prespective should follow this criterias: i) Prioritize protection from disaster ii) Is inclusive, gender-sensitive, and not discriminative, iii) Protective and attentive to all students, and iv) Put children’s health first.

Recommendation

1. Surveillance needed which involves different parties to implement development

construction with bidding system. 2. The government should disseminate socialization about the importance of safe and friendly

schools to larger community 3. Evaluation is crucial in building construction. 4. Schools choose to manage the funding independently, instead of using third party, because

schools are the ones most aware of its true condition and needs 5. The community should do the progress monitoring

Second Day, 21st December 2010

Panel Discussion 3

Resource person : 1. Avianto Amri (Plan ARO) 2. Krishna S. Pribadi (PMB ITB) 3. Dr. Trevor Dhu (AIFDR-AUSAID)

Moderator : Amin Magatani Avianto Amri (Plan ARO) : Education Minimum Standard in Emergency Situation (INEE

revisi)

▪ Education in emergency condition is very important, it should be sustainable

▪ INEE (Inter Agency Networking for Education in Emergency) is a collaboration of various international organization to produce education minimum standard in such emergency case. INEE members are experts in education and hazards from around the world.

▪ There are 5 minimum standard developed by INEE, namely : 1. general standard for all sectors, 2. Education and enviromental access standard, 3. Teaching and curriculum standard, 4. Teachers and other education practitioners standard, and 5. Policy minimum standard.

Dr. Trevor Dhu (AIFDR) : Safe School Risk Review

▪ As one of the most prone to earthquake countries, Indonesia suffers casualties not because of the hazard, but because of the weak buildings.


▪ It is impossible to build an earthquake-proof school, only earthquake-safe school. Next step is risk review

▪ AIFDR-AUSAID in partnership with BNPB is developing Risk in Box, an open source tool providing information about earthquakes. With this concept, people can insert data and information to the link, which can be accessed online and offline

▪ AUSAID also supoport the formation of Team 9, consists of geologist to develop earthquake prone maps in Indonesia

▪ The Istambul’s government success in building safe schools should be considered to get adopted in Indonesia

Dr. Ir. Krishna S. Pribadi (PMB ITB) : Structural Review Tool for Earthquake-Safe

Schools

▪ There are 50% school buildings in Indonesia needs rehabilitation. It is ironic to know there has not been any adequate funding to facilitate this.

▪ So many schools in Indonesia are prone to earthquakes for several reasons: little awareness about earthquakes, inappropriate building design, school buildings lack maintenance, layouts do not complement emergency respons (exit doors, evacuation lane, and open space), teachers and students are not prepared for disasters.

▪ National Strategy to reduce school building risks: regular evaluation towards prone condition in schools, develop priority criteria and scenario, develop national action to retroffit school buildings in Indonesia, fundraising, implementation by construction selection, supervisor consultantcy, trainings for constructors, monitoring and evaluation by the government, committe, education community, and experts.

▪ Structural Review Tool for Earthquake-Safe Schools consists of 3 parts: appraisal by schools, appraisal by school management, and appraisal by experts. This includes structural and non-structural combination.

XI. GROUP DISCUSSION OUTPUT

SAFE SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT

Group Discussion was separated in 6 diffeent topics. Each group’s facilitator is also DRR facilitator for Plan Pus and PUM. Group 1 : Safe School Location Group 2 : Behaviour, Attitude, and Knowledge Development Group 3 : Safe school building structure Group 4 : Class layout and design Group 5 : Facilities and service support Group 6 : Recommendation From various presented material in group discussion, we can draw a conclusion with 5 basic aspects:


1. Disaster-safe location: This covers all related things about choosing the right location which is safe from the hazard of disaster, like open space, distance from hazard source, easy access, near to public facilities, clean water, electricity, and communication network. Not only that, safe school also requires permanent procedure to cope with disaster. The challenge is to encounter schools with already-permanent building, nestled in prone areas. Such schools need to be encouraged to execute efforts of reducing disaster risks through knowledge transfer for teachers, students, school advisors, and parents. To ensure if a school is safe, we need risk anaysis tool and track down disaster history in the location.

2. Knowledge, Attitude, and Behaviour; this aspect includes school community actions

both pre, during, or post disaster. To increase knowledge and prepare appropriate attitude to reduce disaster risks, several actions should be done, for example: workshop/seminar, regular simulation, communication network development, risk management trainings (P3K, HVCA, emergency actions), integrate activities to school curriculum, mainstreaming through students’ orientation), local content school subject, exhange study, etc.

The school community should be more aware, attentive, develop calm and controlled attitude, and entrusted all information to reliable resources like climate and weather to BMKG.

3. Building Structure; safe school building should meet the following criterias: strong and

solid, design appropriateness meets local wisdom, schoold building is compatible with thread characteristics, all main structure in connected with building technical standard, quality material and is build according to excellent procedure and trained workers.

4. Class design and layout setting; this aspect is related to ideal classroom management to

reduce disaster risks. One of the key points are: each class should have 2 doors exiting outside, maximum capacity of 30 children each class, the distance between tables and chairs should be 0,5 meters minimum, cupboards to be placed far from the doors and should stand next to the wall, as with any displays, it should not made of glasses, and to provide evacution signs inside and outside class, etc.

5. Facilities and service support: According to Ministry of National Education’s policy No.

24/2007 about facilities and service support standard, minimum criterias to support learning processes are: 1) Schools should have education tool and media, books, and other other learning source, information technology and other mandatory tools for schools; 2) Facilities minimum criterias consist of soil, buildings, classrooms, and mandatory energy instalation for schools/faith-based schools.

To list some standards for facilities and services in safe schools are, amongst all: signage availability, solid, strong, with round end chairs and tables, a school emergency room completed with adequate medication and equipped with tools, lantrines at each floor, fire extinguisher tool in each class, safe evacuation route, adequate clean water, platoon tents, appropriate water canal for flood-threatened schools, safety equipment (life jacket, ropes, bamboo, etc.), open space, worship facilities, etc.


Safe Schools Components

Facilities Safe

structure

Awareness,

attitude, and

behaviour

Sekolah Aman [safe school]

Security from hazard source

(flood, erosion, tsunami,

etc.), easy access, open

space, clean water, etc.

Earthquake, erosion,

and tsunami-safe

structure.

First Aid, self-

evacuation

capacity, risk

awareness and

reduce, hazards,

prone, etc.

Table and chairs

layout should be

safe and

complement

evacuation,

including exit

doors.

Class

design and

setting

Early warning system, First

Aid, availiable emergency

tent, fix procedure, etc.

Safe

location


XII. CONCLUSIONS

A. Out comes of the conference:

- This was the first Safe School conference ever in Indonesia and the first time various

actors got together to discuss the concept.

- After the conference participations have realized that safe school concept has to be

promoted more in the country

- The issue of Safe school will be promoted national wide

- The conference was in itself a mapping of the actors engaged in the issue and Plan is

recognized as of the leading an INGOs and that initiated the conference

- Drafting team was created to develop Safe Schools concept/guideline which consists of

10 persons, representatives from various organizations and agencies that participated

as a conference participant. The first meeting will be held at the end of June 2011.

- The discussion turned into a roadmap to develop guidelines which will at first focus on

one area construction. All 5 elements of the safe school was discussed, the other 4 need

more work. (safe schools concept/guideline that will be developed by the team has not

only focus on construction but focus also on 4 others component. I just want to say that

process to prepare the guideline of safe schools which has developed by NDMA, Plan,

UNESCO and others has different with the process which has conducted by drafting

team of national conference. The result document of both process also different. But it

would be strengthen each other).

- There was a common understanding that this is just the beginning and guidelines needs

to be developed to include more components and further advocacy work is needed.

B. After the conference:

1. Plan Indonesia has attended meetings with NDMA (National Disaster Management

Agency) and Ministry of National Education (MNE). First meeting was held by MNE on

December 29, 2010 and the second meeting held by NDMA on January 24, 2011. The

result of these meetings (both) fully supported to realize safe schools in Indonesia.

2. The result of series meeting was NDMA made recommendation letter to push MONE in

order to allocate budget for rehabilitation and reconstruction of shools in vulnerable

areas in 60 district. Part of these recommendation letter is (annex), a guideline of Safe


Schools Assessment whiches focus on infrastructure/building structure of school

particular safe from earthquake hazard. Meanwhile, other components will be added in

the next process. These document which has developed/prepared by NDMA, PLAN,

UNESCO, World Bank, MONE, and local NGOS become MONE’s document. As a official

document, the MONE will be disseminate to all schools and internal staff in MONE also

to ensure that all institution under MONE will use the document as a guideline.

3. In term of budget allocation, MNE would like to post a number of budget more or less

1,3 trillion (IDR) for 1 year. The budget is allocated to support schools in vulnerable

areas in 60 districts in Indonesia. The funds will ensure the infrastructure of the schools,

to make them safe from disasters like earthquake, but there are no guidelines to ensure

that for ex the local government at the district level is using the funds these way, there

is little follow up

4. Plan will be involved as a member of technical team to make sure how safe schools in

Indonesia to be everyone business as well realize safe schools its self.

5. Plan is planning to publish a book on safe schools...

XIII. RECOMMENDATION

1. Dana Alokasi Khusus (DAK) or Special Allocated Funds for safe school programs is

better generated to the community to be managed independently, instead through the

third party. Nevertheless, the most important is how to put forth the accountability

standard for the safe school itself.

2. Team are required to finalize and star advocating the issue, in line with Disaster

Education Consortium

3. Formulate a certified team

4. The government is expected to increase budget for school rehabilitation in prone

districts.

5. School community capacity building

6. Resource mobilization for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in private company

7. There should be a blueprint for National Action Plan appropriate for Indonesia context.


FORMULATING TEAM MEMBERS

NO NAMES ORGANIZATION CONTACT NO. EMAIL

1. Dedi Arwadi Sudin Dikdas Jakarta Utara

0813-80418544/ 021-43936445

2. Faisal Ilyas TDMRC 0852-60153488 [email protected]

3. Achmal Mardani Al-Ikhlas organization

4. Wijang Wijanarko

Griya Mandiri organization

[email protected]

5. HM Prayoga Grobogan Education Agency

6. Dr. Budi Anna Keliat, S.Kp., M.Apps.Sc

Faculty of Nursery, Univerity of Indonesia

0812-8100-821

7. Tigor Pakpahan 0812-9438955

8. Lifein Seli Yayasan Tanggul Bencana di Indonesia

[email protected]

10. Zulhamsah SMA 82 Jakarta 0815-9771822

11. Nursalam Wahib, MS

KesbangPolinmas, Rembang district

Plan Indonesia will start the process thorugh intensive discussion with other team and coordination with Kemendiknas, BNPB, KPB and UNESCO.

XIII. MEDIA COVERAGE

There are some print and electronic media coverage about the conference, both in local and national media. Some coverage compiled by organizers are as seen in the following links: 1. Koran tempo www.tempointeraktif.com 2. http://www.berani.co.id/Artikel_Detail.aspx?ID=4649&URLView=Arsip_Berita_Nusantara

.aspx 3. http://www.menkokesra.go.id/content/siaga-bencana-harus-jadi-gaya-hidup 4. http://www.tnol.co.id/id/onthespot/7430-sekolah-aman-bencana.html 5. http://diksia.com/diperlukan-sekolah-aman-di-indonesia/ 6. http://www.kompas.com/ 7. http://edukasi.kompas.com/read/2010/12/20/22045132/Sekolah.Aman.Masih.Minim 8. http://forum.banjarmasinpost.co.id/read/artikel/2010/12/21/67944/sekolah-aman-

masih-minim 9. http://www.mandikdasmen.depdiknas.go.id/web/berita/977.html

XIV. CLOSING

This report is developed as an evaluation material and to be used for other interests as follow up for program implementation in the future.

Final Report Safe Schools Conference Indonesia Jakarta Dec 2010

Documents

Transcript of Final Report Safe Schools Conference Indonesia Jakarta Dec 2010