Reporting Forms

REPORTING FORMS

REPORTING FORM 1

PARTICIPANTS’ DETAILS

Please send all Reporting Forms within one week of the workshop to , or fax them to +1 212 326 7129 addressed to Jennifer Hofmann, UNICEF Education Section. For more information, go to or call the INEE Coordinator for Minimum Standards, Jennifer Hofmann at: + 1 212 326 7581.

In which location did your consultation take place? _____Japan______

On which date did your consultation take place? ___4 and 5 September 2009 and virtually through email.______

Over how many hours did you hold your consultation? __4 September 2009: 1 hour, 5 September 2009: 45 minutes______

What organization hosted the workshop? _IRP______

Who were the facilitators? __Sanjaya Bhatia______

How many participants attended? 1 face to face, and 2 through phone / email______

Please ask each person to record their name, position title (or school level if a student), name of organization or institution and e-mail address (if available). It is important each participant’s name is recorded accurately as each one will be included in the acknowledgements for the updated INEE Minimum Standards Handbook.

NAME / POSITION / ORGANIZATION / COUNTRY / ADDRESS/EMAIL ADDRESS / INEE MEMBER?
Mariana Coolican / Ph.D student / Kobe University / Japan /
Hiroshi Kawamura / Vice President / Assistive Technology Development Organization / Japan /
Dr. Robin Antepara / Adjunct Professor, Gakushuin University / Japan /

DRR FEEDBACK PROVIDER DETAILS

Name: Sanjaya Bhatia

Position: Knowledge Management Officer

Organization: IRP

Country: Japan

Address:

Email Address:

INEE Member? Yes

FEEDBACK ON DISASTER RISK REDUCTION,

ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Please return this form to Marla Petal for compilation.

1. Record of suggested changes, and/or additional tools or reference tools

Please ensure that all columns are completed.

Category / Standard/Indicator/
Guidance Note / Page no. / Existing text / Proposed change or addition of tool or reference material / Evidence/ justification
Community participation standard 1: participation / 15 / 2.Roles and responsibilities of community education committee members should be clearly defined and readily available to the community. These may include, but not be limited to, the following: / - ensuring disaster risk reduction is a component of the education program / To ensure that DRR is discussed in the community education committees, a reference is
added as one of the responsibilities of the committee
Appendix 2: Planning in an Emergency: Situation Analysis Checklist / 30 / Checklist / Add Risk Red School Disaster Reduction & Readiness
Checklist / The disaster reduction checklist will bring issues of risk reduction on to the agenda
Access and learning environment standard 2: protection and well-being / 45 / Learning environments are secure, and promote the protection and mental and emotional well-being of learners.
Key Indicators: / - The structure of the education facility or temporary school is resilient to disasters
- Teachers and learners are trained and have drilled emergency response, evacuation
- A safe area for evacuation has been designated / Some additional factors for consideration to ensure safety of the learning environment
Teaching and learning standard 1: curricula / 56 / Key indicators / - DRR is taught as part of the curricula (including do’s and don’ts and a basic understanding of mitigation measures / Learners should understand response to typical disasters
Teaching and learning standard 2: training / 59 / Key indicators / - Teachers are trained to deliver DRR module in curriculum / Teachers should receive basic orientation on how to deliver the topic
Education policy and coordination standard 2: planning and implementation / 71 / Key indicators / - Continuity in education is a component of the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment
Annex / 80 / Terminology / -Necessity to differentiate between “learning content” and competences / Learning content is the knowledge, while skills, values and attitudes are competences
Access and learning environment standard 3: facilities / 47 / Key indicators (to be read in conjunction with the guidance notes)
•The learning structure and site are accessible to all, regardless of physical ability. / Utilize methods of ICT for dissemination of the emergency plan which are accessible to persons with three types of disabilities: 1) Physical 2) Intellectual / Cognitive such as autism 3) Mental such as schizophrenia / Persons with such disabilities need an accessible multi-media format for distribution otherwise the voiceless cannot be heard.
This is in compliance with the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Tools are available from DAISY Consortium:
In addition, such tools are useful in countries with diversity of languages and dialects, to enable access to the documents to those illiterate, and those belonging to language groups without written scripts
Teacher and other educational personal standard 1: recruitment and selection / 66 / Key indicators / Teachers or other educational personnel with qualifications in accordance to work with people/children with special needs, for visual impaired people, for deaf people, others. / People with special needs require special treatment, especially in cases of emergency. Materials and information in cases of disaster might be formatted in accordance of specific need of this population.

2. Any further guidance or information, including discussion points

Recommendations from INEE Istanbul Consultation April 2009:-

INEE members to take steps for disaster-proofing education sector projects, building and maintaining safe learning environments
The tools presented at the conference should be further developed with INEE support and for adoption and wider dissemination amongst members
INEE should support capacity development for DRR among members.

Assessment and evaluation of effectiveness of hazard related curriculum materials is required. Further work is needed to adopt hazard focused approaches to other types of risk and threat.
Clear messages are needed to explain the value of a risk reduction approach to reach development sectors—social protection, climate change—and various communities of practice (e.g. EFA).

These recommendations help bridge the gap between DRR theory and practice within the INEE community
Further information concerning access:
Phuket declaration on Disaster Preparedness for Persons with Disabilities
We, participants of the Second International Conference on Disaster Preparedness for Persons with Disabilities, assembled on the twelfth and thirteenth of May 2009, at Millennium Patong Beach Resort Hotel, Phuket, Thailand:
1.Recognize the needs for ongoing efforts to achieve disability-inclusive disaster preparedness by all means including through knowledge-based solutions, combining the strength of standard-based accessible ICTs and traditional/local knowledge and through full and effective participation of persons with diverse types of disabilities;
2.Reaffirm the spirit of the Phuket Declaration on Tsunami Preparedness for Persons with Disabilities, especially with regard to [serious meaningful full] implementation of the Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF), World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), Tampere Convention and other relevant instruments;
3.Strongly committed to foster networking and partnership environment among disability sector, ICT sector, disaster preparedness/management sector and international development sector while reaching out for greater collaboration with other sectors, including policy makers, local governments and local communities, researchers and other relevant interested parties to turn the spirit, principles and demands for disability-inclusive disaster preparedness into reality
4.Resolve among us to form a collaborative network under the flagship of Phuket Initiative toward Disability-inclusive Disaster Preparedness, and
5.Hereby we agreed to establish a working group to formulate a strategy and implementation plan of the declaration
Further details of two international meetings on disaster preparedness of persons with disabilities in Phuket, please visit:

REPORTING FORM 4

REFLECTION ON THE CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP

Describe your experience of facilitating your INEE Minimum Standards update consultative workshop.

Were participants able to identify changes they would like to see in the handbook easily or was it difficult for them? Describe the process.

I took them through the provisions of the MS section by section. Also explained the process of review, next steps, etc. This reduced the time needed for understanding the background.

Describe the issues of debate that caused disagreement or uncertainty.

Lack of familiarity with the MS was an issue, and the reason why I took the participants quickly through the MS section by section.

Was the Facilitator’s Guide useful? Was it easy to follow? What suggestions do you have for its improvement?

The guide was easy to follow and of immense utility.