Disaster Risk Reduction in School Curricula: Case Studies ... - Unicef

More documents

Recommendations

Info

141 Industrialized Countries practical support and stimulus to those who were already interested in DRR, and further influence those who were not aware of the importance of DRR education. The committee noted that currently good examples exist in specific schools and localities as ‘dots’ in isolation (Ibid). The level of commitment to and implementation of DRR education in Japan indeed differs from region to region, some regions being more advanced than others. For example, to hand down lessons from the 1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Disasterto future generations, the Hyogo Prefectural Board of Education developed supplementary materials for classroom use at different grade levels of primary and secondary schools. Maiko High School in Hyogo Prefecture has developed a special course on disaster prevention (Chinoi, 2007). In some regions, however, very little appears to be happening. Consolidating good practice is a vital next step for DRR curricula development in Japan. The HFA National Progress Report touches upon this point as follows: ‘It is required to develop more systematized programs that fit to ages and [local] areas and improve current official curriculum guidelines’ (UNISDR, 2011,14). Similarly, MEXT (2011a) points out the importance of systematically developing pre- and in-service teacher training opportunities for all teachers. References Chinoi, T. (2007). Disaster Education in Japan. In: Building Research Institute and National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (BRI/GIPS) (2007). Disaster Education. Japan: GRI/ GRIPS, 50-66. Goto, M. (undated). Education of National Disaster Preparedness of Japan. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2007). Consultation Meeting on Supporting Disaster Risk Reduction Education: Interim Report. http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/kaihatu/006/ shiryo/08012223/003.htm Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2011a). Expert Consultation Meetings on Disaster Risk Reduction Education and Disaster Management in Response to the Great East Japan Earthquake: Interim Report. http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/sports/012/attach/1310995.htm Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2011b). Responses to the Great East Japan Earthquake. MEXT White Paper. UNISDR. (2011). Japan: National Progress Report on the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework of Action (2009-2011). http://www.preventionweb.net/files/19650_jpn_NationalH- FAprogress_2009-11.pdf Disaster Risk Reduction in School Curricula: Case Studies from Thirty Countries
142 Section 10. Case 18: The Case Studies New Zealand Overview New Zealand offers a national multi-media (print form and electronic) approach to DRR for primary and intermediate schools (students aged 7 to 12). The resource is an initiative of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management that is embraced by but not proactively reinforced by the Ministry of Education. It is of considerable interest in its multihazard approach, the comprehensive nature of the programme developed and its use of diverse learning and teaching approaches. It also provides some important insights into what is necessary in order to reinforce and therefore systematize delivery of DRR through a national curriculum. Introduction What’s the Plan Stan? (WTPS) is a teaching and learning resource developed under the auspices of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM). The resource features the cartoon figures of Stan the dog and five children who model best practices in disaster preparation and response. It is aimed at teachers, offering guidance on incorporating the material in their teaching and learning programmes principals, offering advice on school emergency management; and students and their families, offering easy-to- assimilate, user-friendly DRR material. What’s the Plan Stan? focuses on earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, storms, floods and non-natural disasters (pandemics, wildfires, biohazards, transportation accidents, terrorist bombs and threats). The package includes a Teachers’ Guide, a CD-ROM and a website: www.whatstheplanstan.govt.nz. It was developed by Educating NZ, a leading education consultancy, on behalf of MCDEM 89 . The CD-ROM and website provide essentially the same material for both teachers and students. The teacher section contains the Teacher’s Guide, templates for handouts, unit plans, links to websites and organizations and ideas for using the CD-ROM with students. The student section includes facts on each disaster likely to afflict New Zealand, maps and historical accounts of disasters in New Zealand, photographs and video clips, interactive stories, quizzes and games. WTPS has also been made available in the Maori language for use in language immersion and bilingual schools and within Maori-speaking communities. At the time of writing, MCDEM is finalizing a consultation and review process prior to the publication of an electronic disaster awareness resource for the early childhood sector, the Early Childhood Education (ECE) Services Emergency Planning Guidance, online since December 2011 90 . Curriculum Development/Integration The WTPS Teacher’s Guide emphasizes the fit between what the resource seeks to foster and the New Zealand national curriculum vision of nurturing confident, connected, actively involved young people who are lifelong learners; also highlighted is the resource’s alignment with the curriculum’s core value of community engagement and its associated key competencies (MCDEM, 2009, 13). Curriculum learning areas identified as particularly suitable for incorporating What’s the Plan Stan are: Health and Physical Education (Safety Management), Social Studies (the conceptual strands of Identity, Culture and Organization, and Continuity and Change), Science (Nature of Science, Planet Earth and Beyond), and English (Listening, Reading and Viewing; Speaking, Writing and Presenting). (Ibid. 13-14.) The detailed unit plans set out in the Teacher’s Guide are linked to the four learning areas and are meant to dovetail with the learning objectives for those areas at junior, middle and senior levels (within the primary and intermediate school). For example, the junior level unit lays out classroom activities for the four learning areas into four sections: Section A: Reducing the risk – making ourselves aware; Section B: Let’s get ready – and stay prepared; Section C: Time to practice – responding the right way; Section D: Be a survivor – recovery 89 90 http://www.educating.co.nz/ Marika Luiso, Acting Team Leader, Professional Development, MCDEM to David Selby, 16 November 2011. The resource is available at www.mcdem. govt.nz and www.lead.ece.govt.nz Disaster Risk Reduction in School Curricula: Case Studies from Thirty Countries
Page 1 and 2:
United United Nations Nations Unite
Page 3 and 4:
Disaster Risk Reduction in School C
Page 5 and 6:
5 Acknowledgements UNICEF and UNESC
Page 7 and 8:
8 Executive Summary This document r
Page 9 and 10:
10 Section 1. Introduction The Hyog
Page 11 and 12:
12 © UNICEF/NYHQ2009-1460/Josh Est
Page 13 and 14:
14 Section 2. Methodology Environme
Page 15 and 16:
16 © UNICEF/NYHQ2010-1356/Marta Ra
Page 17 and 18:
18 Section 3. Disaster Risk Reducti
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
22 © UNICEF/NYHQ2009-1818/Susan Ma
Page 23 and 24:
24 Section 4. Approaches to Integra
Page 25 and 26:
26 Section 4. Approaches to Integra
Page 27 and 28:
28 © UNICEF/NYHQ2010-2125/Olivier
Page 29 and 30:
30 Section 5. Towards a Pedagogy of
Page 31 and 32:
32 Section 5. Towards a Pedagogy of
Page 33 and 34:
34 © UNICEF/NYHQ2009-1271/Marta Ra
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
38 © UNICEF/NYHQ2011-0563/Olivier
Page 39 and 40:
40 Section 7. Teacher Professional
Page 41 and 42:
42 Section 7. Teacher Professional
Page 43 and 44:
44 © UNICEF/NYHQ2004-0238/Ben Park
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
54 © UNICEF/NYHQ1997-0893/Roger Le
Page 55 and 56:
56 Section 9. Diagram 1. Integratin
Page 57 and 58:
58 Section 9. Integrating Disaster
Page 59 and 60:
60 © UNICEF/NYHQ2008-0459/Adam Dea
Page 61 and 62:
62 Section 10. Case 1: The Case Stu
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90: 90 Section 10. Case 6: The Case Stu
Page 99 and 100: 100 Section 10. Case 8: The Case St
Page 107 and 108: 108 Section 10. Case 10: The Case S
Page 139: 140 Section 10. Case 17: The Case S
Page 191 and 192:
192 Section 10. Case 30: The Case S
Page 193 and 194:
194 Section 11. Checklist of Optima
Page 195 and 196:
196 Section 11. Checklist of Optima
Page 197 and 198:
198 Section Photographs Cover: Youn
Page 199 and 200:
200 Section 6: page 34 On 1 August,
Page 201 and 202:
202 Country Case Study Photographs
Page 203 and 204:
204 Myanmar page 109 Students atten
Page 205 and 206:
206 Chile page 151 In 1994 in Chile
Page 207 and 208:
Colophon The report was printed on
Page 209:
CO PUBLISHED CO PUBLISHED United Na
show all

Disaster Risk Reduction in School Curricula: Case Studies ... - Unicef

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?