Input paper HFA Thematic Review/Indicator Research: ‘Priority for Action (Pfa) 3 – Core Indicator (Ci) 2: School Curricula, Education Material And Relevant Training Include Disaster Risk Reduction And Recovery /

Introduction: Focus of Input Paper - Following the acceptance of our Abstract and subsequent consultation with UNICEF, this Input Paper will draw from the foundation provided by the Comprehensive School Safety framework (GADRRRES, 2014), with a primary focus on Pillar 3 (Risk Reduction and Resilience Education). In particular, we will home in on three primary elements in Pillar 3: formal curricula integration; informal, extracurricular and community-based education; and teacher training and staff development. Our focus will be on the research done thus far on formal and informal programs, including outcomes achieved in research to date as well as a consideration of design and methods used. We will also provide considerations regarding curricula integration to amplify, extend and supplement comprehensive advice from UNESCO/UNICEF (2012). A brief discussion about teacher training will be included in the context of achieving more integrated curricula as well as assisting teachers to deal effectively with emotional issues that arise for children in discussions and activities around DRR. Alongside this major focus, some consideration of Pillar 1 (Safe Learning Facilities) as it overlaps (a) with Pillar 3, specifically related to important gaps in learning about disaster resilient construction, and (b) with Pillar 2 (School Disaster Management). In this latter instance, the focus includes overlaps and where calls for consistency with Pillar 3 have been made. These include school drills, family reunification planning, and household disaster planning. It is worthwhile reiterating what the larger body of research on public health education and education for disaster risk reduction has learned, over several decades, about the factors that enable positive behavioural change at the family and household level (Wood et al., 2012): That people need clear, specific action-oriented messages around which there is clear consensus across trusted agencies and community stakeholder groups. People want to know that the measures they take are going to be effective (referred to as adjustment efficacy). Also, people need to feel that they personally are capable of taking these measures (referred to as self-efficacy). Specific guidance messages also need repetition over time and across multiple messaging platforms, including those that promote increasing social acceptability for taking these actions (Wood et al., 2012). We also know that some risk perception and productive anxiety (i.e., concern sufficient to encourage action) is necessary to motivate people, but we need to be careful not to provoke unproductive levels of fear. Importantly, people are more proactive when risks can be framed in terms of (surmountable) challenges and as problems to be solved as opposed to dire, insurmountable threats (Ronan & Towers, 2014). Messaging must also be two-way and developed with those at risk in order to meet the knowledge gaps, perspectives and capacities of the target groups and ensure trust (Haynes et al 2008). Finally, the wider socio-cultural, economic and political barriers to behaviour change and risk reduction must be considered when delivering any education program (Ronan & Towers, 2014). Despite the success of the delivery of the program and an increase in knowledge, these wider factors may impact significantly on any real outcomes to reduce risks (Haynes & Tanner, 2014)