Implementation of Disaster Risk Reduction Management Program and Teachers Level of Commitment: Basis for a Proposed Contingent Plan
Type
Thesis
Authors
Category
Publication Year
2022
Pages
127
Abstract
School disaster planning is facet or larger community planning and, therefore, requires coordinated planning and allocation of community resources. Plans should be developed in partnership with other community groups, including law enforcement, fire safety, public health, EMS, and pediatric and mental health professionals. The researcher's experience as a School Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Coordinator are the means to pursue this topic. As ADRRM Coordinator, he managed the schools program to DRRM and it was difficult one because of the absence of contingency plan and some equipment and materials to be used for the DRRM Activities like drills.
The researcher utilized selected public secondary schools in Caloocan, Valenzuela, and Quezon City. Stratified random sampling were used to rely on the judgement of the respondents on the questionnaires. The respondents of this study are composed of three groups. The first group consist of the school heads or the Chairman of the School Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council, the second group is the Selected Teachers of the selected public secondary schools, and the third group is the Local Government Units of the selected school areas. They have been choosing by the researcher in the sense that they are directly involved in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the program in their respective schools and areas.
The Prevention and Mitigation area got the highest overall weighted mean of 3.26 which is under the Highly Implemented description. This signifies that schools are highly implementing the programs and activities under this thematic area of DRRM. It was evidently revealed on some contingency plan of the schools. The highest variable or thematic area in the level of teachers' commitment to the implementation is the Preparedness with a weighted mean of 3.17 and falls under the descriptive value of Committed. This implies that the teachers are prepared and practicing the preparedness plan of the DRRM Program.
The lowest ranked in the thematic area of the DRRM Program for the level of teachers' commitment to its implementation is the rehabilitation and recovery with a weighted mean of 1.96, Less Committed. Prevention and mitigation obtained an F - value of 43.505 with P value of 3,4 -08 Preparedness obtained an F-value of 15.242 with P-value of 5.34 £05, an F - value of 195.849 for Response with P-value of 2.63 -¹¹ and Recovery and Rehabilitation obtained an F- value of 20.428 with P - value of 1.198-05 Prevention and mitigation obtained computed r of 0.262, Preparedness obtained a computer r of 0.441, Response posted a computer r of -0.192 while Recovery and Rehabilitation obtained a computer r of 0.071. It can be further shown that all computed r values much below the tabular value on a = 0.05 which is 0.497. This can be interpreted as no significant relationship; hence null hypotheses were accepted.
The researcher utilized selected public secondary schools in Caloocan, Valenzuela, and Quezon City. Stratified random sampling were used to rely on the judgement of the respondents on the questionnaires. The respondents of this study are composed of three groups. The first group consist of the school heads or the Chairman of the School Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council, the second group is the Selected Teachers of the selected public secondary schools, and the third group is the Local Government Units of the selected school areas. They have been choosing by the researcher in the sense that they are directly involved in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the program in their respective schools and areas.
The Prevention and Mitigation area got the highest overall weighted mean of 3.26 which is under the Highly Implemented description. This signifies that schools are highly implementing the programs and activities under this thematic area of DRRM. It was evidently revealed on some contingency plan of the schools. The highest variable or thematic area in the level of teachers' commitment to the implementation is the Preparedness with a weighted mean of 3.17 and falls under the descriptive value of Committed. This implies that the teachers are prepared and practicing the preparedness plan of the DRRM Program.
The lowest ranked in the thematic area of the DRRM Program for the level of teachers' commitment to its implementation is the rehabilitation and recovery with a weighted mean of 1.96, Less Committed. Prevention and mitigation obtained an F - value of 43.505 with P value of 3,4 -08 Preparedness obtained an F-value of 15.242 with P-value of 5.34 £05, an F - value of 195.849 for Response with P-value of 2.63 -¹¹ and Recovery and Rehabilitation obtained an F- value of 20.428 with P - value of 1.198-05 Prevention and mitigation obtained computed r of 0.262, Preparedness obtained a computer r of 0.441, Response posted a computer r of -0.192 while Recovery and Rehabilitation obtained a computer r of 0.071. It can be further shown that all computed r values much below the tabular value on a = 0.05 which is 0.497. This can be interpreted as no significant relationship; hence null hypotheses were accepted.
Number of Copies
1