Chapter 4

o
29
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
This chapter answer the questions in the statement of the problem by presenting the results
of the data gathered and providing the corresponding interpretations and/ or analyses.
In addition, this chapter also contains the observations between the School Heads and
DRRM coordinators in implementing the Disaster Risk Reduction Management (DRRM)
PRESENTATION OF DATA
A. Demographic Profile of the Respondents
The frequency and percentage distribution of the subjects of the study according to profile
are presented in Table 2. There was a total of twenty-six (26) respondents, composed of 13
School Heads and DRRM coordinators who participated in the study.
Table 1
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According
to Demographic Profile
SCHOOL HEADS DRRM COORDINATOR
Profile Frequency Percentag Rank Frequency Percentage Rank
e (%) (%)
21-25 years old 0 0 7.5 3 23 2.5
26-30 years old 1 8 4.5 6 46 1
31-35 years old 4 31 1 3 23 2.5
36-40 years old 0 0 7.5 1 8 4
41-45 years old 3 23 2.5 0 0 7
46-50 years old 3 23 2.5 0 0 7
Age 51-55 years old 1 8 4.5 0 0 7
56-60 years old 0 0 7.5 0 0 7
61 years old and above 1 0 7.5 0 0 7
TOTAL 13 100 13 100
Gender Male 2 15 2 10 77 1
Female 11 85 1 3 23 2
TOTAL 13 100 13 100
Teacher I 0 0 8.5 12 92 1
Teacher II 0 0 8.5 1 1 2
Teacher III 0 0 8.5 0 0 7.5
Head Teacher I 4 31 2 0 0 7.5

o
Head Teacher II 1 8 4 0 0 7.5

Head Teacher III 0 0 8.5 0 0 7.5
Head Teacher IV 0 0 8.5 0 0 7.5
Principal I 4 31 2 0 0 7.5
Principal II 0 0 8.5 0 0 7.5
Principal III 0 0 8.5 0 0 7.5
Principal IV 0 0 8.5 0 0 7.5
Position/ Teacher In-Charge (Plantilla 4 31 2 0 0 7.5
Designation Position)
TOTAL 13 100 13 100
Number of 3 years and below 2 15 3 3 23 2
4-6 years 3 23 2 7 54 1
Years in
7-9 years 1 8 4.5 2 15 3
Teaching/ 10-12 years 1 8 4.5 0 0 6
Service 13-15 years 0 0 6.6 1 8 4
16-18 years 6 46 1 0 0 6
19 years and above 0 0 6.5 0 0 6
TOTAL 13 100 13 100
Highest Bachelor’s Degree 0 0 6.5 7 54 1
Earned units in MA/MS 10 77 1 5 38 2
Educational
CARMA/CARMS 0 0 6.5 1 8 3
Attainment Master’s Degree 0 0 6.5 0 0 5.5
Earned unit in Phd or EdD 2 15 2 0 0 5.5
CAR in Phd or EdD 1 8 3 0 0 5.5
Phd or EdD Degree 0 0 6.5 0 0 5.5
TOTAL 13 100 13 100
Number of 1-3 trainings and seminars 7 54 1 11 85 1
trainings and attended
4-6 trainings and seminars 6 46 2 2 15 2
seminars
attented
attended related
7-9 trainings and seminars 0 0 3.5 0 0 3.5
to Disaster Risk
attented
Reduction 10 and above trainings and 0 0 3.5 0 0 3.5
Management seminars attented
TOTAL 13 100 13 100
Age of Respondents
School Heads: The age of respondent range from 21 to 61 years old and above. School
Heads or Teacher In-Charge ages in first rank is 31-35 which is 31 percent. Ages of 41-45 and
46 to 50 years old have a frequency of 3 which is 23 percent. 1 or 8 percent with the ages from
26 to 30 and 51 to 55 years old. And 0 or 0 percent is ages from 21 to 25, 36 to 40 and 56 to 60
years old.
o
DRRM Coordinators: The majority of coordinators’ ages are 26-30 years old with a
percentage of 46 percent or frequency of 6. Ages from 21-25 years old and 31 to 35 years old
have both 3 or 23 percent. And 36 to 40 years old which is 1 or 8 percent.
Gender
School Heads: There were 2 or 15 percent males School Heads and 11 or 85 percent
females. Females respondent is bigger than male.
DRRM Coordinators: There were 10 or 77 percent males and 3 or 23 percent females. The
percentage of male respondent is bigger than females.
Position/Designation
School Heads: The position of respondents in School Heads, there were 4 or 31 percent for
Head Teacher I, Principal I and Teacher In-Charge. And there is only 1 or 8 percent of the
respondent for School head as Head Teacher II.
DRRM Coordinators: The position of respondent for teacher I is 12 or 92 percent. And teacher
II is only 1 or 8 percent. Position for teacher II, III, Head Teacher I, II, III and Iv and principal I,
II, III, IV, has 0 or 0 %.
School Heads must have an experience of at least five (5) years in the aggregate as Head
Teacher, Teacher-In-Charge, Master Teacher and Teacher III, in the tabulation, 31% were Head
Teacher I, Principal I and Teacher In-Charge. Compared DRRM Coordinators, their experiences
are not that lengthy compared to School heads as shown in the data with 92% are Teacher I.
Number of Years in Teaching/Service
School Heads: The table shows that majority of length in teaching/service is 19 years and above
which is 6 or 46 percent. 7-9 in tearching/service is 3 or 23 percent. But in 4-6 years in
teaching/service is 2 or 15 percent. And the last both 10-12 and 13-15 years in teaching/service is
1 or 8 percent. 0 or 0 percent for 3 years and above and 16-18 years in teaching/service.
DRRM Coordinators:
o
Got a high percentage in teaching/service is 4 to 6 years which is 7 or 54 percent. 3 or 23 percent

for 3 years and below in teaching/service. Second to the last is 7 to 9 years in teaching/service
which is 2 or 15 percent. And last 1 0r 8 percent for 13 to 15 years in teaching/service.
Highest Educational Attainment
Results showed that 77% of the school heads earned units in MA/MS which explains the
level of education in the Philippines and unsupportive government to push for higher education
(PhD) as the result shows 0% for PhD degree. DRRM coordinators has 54% earned for
Bachelor’s Degree.
Number of trainings/Seminars attended about DRRM
School Heads: Majority of the respondents have 1-3 trainings/seminars attended about DRRM
which is 7 or 54 percent. 6 or 46 percent trainings/seminars attended about DRRM of the
respondent 0 or 0%. 7-9 and 10 and above trainings/seminars attended about DRRM.
DRRM Coordinators: Among respondent there is 11 or 85 percent where is 1-3

trainings/seminars attended about DRRM. 4-6 trainings/seminars attended about DRRM which is
2 or 15 percent. But, 7-9 and 10 and above trainings/seminars attended about DRRM is 0 or 0%.
According to Warren, disaster also occur in gendered context. Filipino women have
generally been defined as more vulnerable than men in typhoon and flood disasters. Gendered
vulnerabilities in typhoon catastrophes depend upon an interconnected set of factors, including
gender, class, ethnicity, and age.
Table 2
Mean Scores, Ranks and Verbal Interpretation of the Items on DRRM Awareness about DRR
Programs, Projects, and Activities of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
DRRM Awareness
1.1. DRR Programs, Projects, School Heads DRRM Coordinator

and Activities Mean Rank Verbal Mea Ran Verbal
Interpretation n k Interpretation
1. DRR projects, activities and 2.77 3 Agree 2.15 5 Disagree
programs focus mainly on outputs
o
alone without including process.

2. There is no good example of 3 1 Agree 2.31 4 Disagree
actionable assessments and
recommendations as they ar e not
applied immediately.
3. Enhancement of multi-hazard 2.92 2 Agree 2.53 1.5 Disagree
awareness is often lacking.
4. School drills lose directions, 2.62 5 Agree 2.53 1.5 Agree
because it varies widely in
efficacy due to lack of (evidence-
based) standards, or failing to use
the drill as a learning opportunity.
5. Lack of consistent training 2.85 4 Agree 2.46 3 Agree
programs for teachers regarding
DRRM.
TOTAL 2.832 Agree 2.396 Disagree
Point Range Verbal Interpretation

Scale Interval
4 3.26-4.00 Strongly Agree
3 2.51-3.25 Agree
2 1.76-2.50 Disagree
1 1.0-1.75 Strongly Disagree
Using the interpretation scale, out of five (5) items the Disaster Risk Reduction
Management (DRRM) Coordinator “agree” with the two items. While the School Heads says
they are “agree” in all items.
The respondents have same perception in two items. They are “agree” on failing to use
the drill as a learning opportunity due to lack of standards and having a lack of consistent
training programs for teachers about Disaster Risk Reduction Management. DRRM Coordinator,
“disagree” with the mean of 2.15 that the DRR projects, activities and programs only focusing on
output without proper process. Have a mean of 2.31 which is “disagree” on no good example of
actionable assessments. And last they are “disagree” on exercising the multi-hazard awareness is
often lacking.
But on the perception of School Heads, they are “agree” that on item n0.1 the DRR
projects, activities and programs only focusing on output without proper process, item no.2 no
o
good example of actionable assessments and item no.3 exercising the multi-hazard awareness is
often lacking.
The total weighted mean of School Heads is 2.832 which is “agree” in interpretation
scale and “disagree” for the perception of DRRM Coordinator with the total weighted mean
2.396. the group of respondents have an opposite perception.
They conclude in opposite perception, the School Heads agree that they aware on having
DRRM projects, activities and program for just having an output to be present because of that the
multi-hazard awareness is often lacking. No good assessment cannot produce as a based-line to
have a learning opportunity. Training programs about DRRM is very vital but District of
Patnanungan do not pay an attention for this resulting to have a lack of knowledge.
Table 3
Mean Scores, Ranks and Verbal Interpretation of the Items on DRRM Awareness about
Physical Facilities and Equipment of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
1.2. Physical Facilities and School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Equipment Mean Rank Verbal Mea Ran Verbal
1. Facilities reconstruction for 2.92 2.5 Agree 2.30 5 Disagree
disaster resiliency is not well-
understood.
2. Upgrading fund for facilities 3 1 Agree 2.38 3.5 Disagree
and equipment not available or
cut off.
3. Inadequate physical resources 2.15 5 Disagree 2.38 3.5 Disagree
to implement DRRM plans and
activities on evacuation and
response.
4. Guidelines for maintenance of 2.92 2.5 Agree 2.46 2 Disagree
o
facilities and equipment are not

clear.
5. Regular monitoring or hazards 2.62 4 Agree 2.62 1 Agree
mapping is not performed.
TOTAL 2.922 Agree 2.428 Disagree

Scale Interval
3 2.51-3.25 Agree
The DRRM Coordinator “disagree” on facilities reconstruction for resiliency is not well
understood with the mean of 2.30. with the mean of 2.38 which is “disagree” on verbal
interpretation of upgrading fund for facilities and equipment not available or cut off. Also
“disagree” on physical resources to implement DRRM plans and activities on evacuation and
responses are inadequate which is 2.38 mean. And last, guidelines for maintenance of facilities
and equipment are not clear, DRRM Coordinator “disagree”. They “agree” on not performing the
regular monitoring and hazards mapping.
On the School Heads perceptions, they are “agree” on the 4 items out of 5 (five) items.
Those are: facilities reconstruction for disaster resiliency is not well-understood which is 2.92
mean, upgrading fund for facilities and equipment not available or cut off which is 3 mean,
guidelines for maintenance of facilities and equipment are not clear which is 2.92 and regular
monitoring or hazards mapping is not performed which is 2.62. But they are “disagree” in terms
of physical resources to implement DRRM plans and activities on evacuation and responses are
inadequate.
The School Heads and DRRM Coordinators the same perception in item no.3, with the
verbal interpretation “disagree”, meaning the District of Patnanungan is having an adequate
physical resources to implement DRRM plans and activities on evacuation and response.
The mean scores of School Heads for physical, facilities and equipment range from 2.15
to 3 with an average mean of 2.922 which is interpreted as “agree”. While the DRRM
Coordinator is with an average mean of 2.428 which is “disagree” in interpretation.
o
Table 4
Budget of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
1.3. Budget School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Mean Rank Verbal Mea Ran Verbal
1. Funding for upgrading 3.23 1 Agree 2.85 2 Agree
facilities and equipment are not
available or cut off.
2. Delays of procurement of 2.92 4 Agree 2.23 5 Disagree
equipment due to the bureaucratic
process of funding.
3. Need for government to 3.15 3 Agree 3.07 1 Disagree
mainstream MOOEs to push
“safe school policy”.
4. Unclear source of funds for 3 2 Agree 2.77 3 Agree
DRRM training, projects, and
programs.
5. External financial support is 2.53 51 Agree 2.53 4 Agree
not tapped or supporters can be
unresponsive.
TOTAL 2.966 Agree 2.690 Agree

Scale Interval
3 2.51-3.25 Agree
School Heads “agree” that funding for upgrading facilities and equipment are not available
or cut off with the mean of 3.23. Delay of procurement of equipment due to the bureaucratic
process of funding, 2.92 of mean. Need for government to mainstream MOOEs to push “safe
school policy which is 3.15 mean. And also agree that the source funds for the DRRM training,
o
projects, and programs are unclear having 3 mean. Last, with the mean of 2.53, which is the
support about external financial is not tapped or may be the supporters is unresponsive.
The DRRM coordinator “agree” on the item no.1 with the mean 2.85, about the budget
that funding for upgrading facilities and equipment are not available or cut off. Item no.2
“disagree” or 2.23 in interpret, they do not believe about the delays of procurement of equipment
due to the bureaucratic process of funding. Item no.3, with mean 3.07 which is “agree” must
need to budget in MOOEs to push “safe school policy”. And the item no.4 and 5 agree on verbal
interpretation which is source of funds for DRRM training, projects, and programs unclear and
external financial support is not tapped or supporters can be unresponsive.
In this table the School Heads have a weighted mean 2.966, “agree” on interpret while
the DRRM coordinator 2.960 and also “agree” on verbal interpretation. They are having same
perception in total.
Table 5
DRRM Promotion in Teaching and Learning of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
1.4. DRRM Promotion in School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Teaching and Learning Mean Rank Verbal Mea Ran Verbal
1. Local and indigenous 3.15 2.5 Agree 2.46 4 Disagree
knowledge are not available to
strengthen curricula.
2. Progress about DRRM in 3.15 2.5 Agree 2.54 3 Agree
school curricula is not monitored.
3. Full scope and sequence of 3 4.5 Agree 3.07 2 Agree
DRRM throughout the curriculum
has not been articulated.
4. Materials for teaching and 3.23 1 Agree 2.38 5 Disagree
integrating DRRM in subjects are
o
not readily available.

5. Lacks monitoring, if DRRM is 3 4.5 Agree 3.23 1 Agree
promoted in teaching and
learning.

Scale Interval
3 2.51-3.25 Agree
In DRRM promotion in Teaching and Learning the School Heads “agree” that to strengthen
the curricula the local and indigenous knowledge are not available, progress about DRRM in
school curricula is not monitored, full scope and sequence of DRRM throughout the curriculum
has not been articulated, materials for teaching and integrating DRRM in subjects are not readily
available and lacks monitoring, if DRRM is promoted in teaching and learning.
On the side of DRRM coordinator, with the mean of 2.38 or “disagree” on interpret, they say
that materials for teaching and integrating DRRM in subjects are readily available and local and
indigenous knowledge are available to strengthen curricula 2.46 in mean. But the 3 (three) items
out of 5 is having “agree” in interpret. Those are: Progress about DRRM in school curricula is
not monitored; Full scope and sequence of DRRM throughout the curriculum has not been
articulated; Lacks monitoring, if DRRM is promoted in teaching and learning.
In this table the School Heads have a weighted mean 3.106, “agree” on interpret while the
DRRM coordinator 2.736 and also “agree” on verbal interpretation. They are having same
perception in total.
According to the UNESCO Director General, Koichiro Matsuura (UNESCO 2007),

anticipating, educating and informing are important ways to reduce the risk as well as the deadly
effect of disasters. education should play in disaster risk reduction, the International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction dedicated 2006 as a year for encouraging both the integration of disaster risk
education in school curricula.
o
Table 6
Mean Scores, Ranks and Verbal Interpretation of the Items on DRRM Practices about
School Policy of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
2. DRRM Practices
2.1. School Policy School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Mean Rank Verbal Mean Rank Verbal
Interpretation Interpretation
1. There is a school policy on 1.92 4.5 Seldom 2.23 3.5 Seldom
DRRM that is shared to the Practiced Practiced
stakeholders.
2. DRRM implementation 1.92 4.5 Seldom 2.08 5 Seldom
undergoes regular monitoring Practiced Practiced
and evaluation.
3. School strictly follows the 2.31 1 Seldom 2.23 3.5 Seldom
mandates for promoting Practiced Practiced
disaster resilient school.
4. External and internal 2.15 2 Seldom 2.46 2 Seldom
stakeholders work Practiced Practiced
collaboratively in the creation
of school DRRM Plan.
5. School policy can be readily 2.08 3 Seldom 2.69 1 Practiced
adjusted to address changes in Practiced
the needs of stakeholders.
TOTAL 2.076 Seldom 2.338 Seldom
Practiced Practiced

Scale Interval
4 3.26-4.00 Highly Practiced
3 2.51-3.25 Practiced
2 1.76-2.50 Seldom Practiced
1 1.0-1.75 Highly Not
Practiced
Based on the table below, it shows that the statement of School Heads on all items have
a verbal interpretation “seldom practiced” with the weighted mean, 1.92, 1.92, 2.31, 2.15 and
2.08. The Average Weighted Mean (AWM) is 2.076 or “seldom practiced” in interpretation.
o
It shows also in this table the rank and weighted mean distribution of DRRM
Coordinator about school policy in implementing DRR practice. The item 1, 2, 3, and 5 have a
verbal interpretation “seldom practiced”. While item 4 is “practiced” in interpretation with a
weighted mean 2.69. The Average Weighted Mean (AWM) is 2.338 which is “seldom
practiced”.
The group of respondents have a same verbal interpretation which is “seldom

practiced”.
Geneva, (UNODRR) There would be no disaster resilience without effective

decentralization, without empowering communities and without addressing social inequalities
and poverty alleviation.
Table 7
Preparedness Planning of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
2.2. Preparedness Planning School Heads DRRM Coordinator

1. There is availability of 2.08 3.5 Seldom 2.54 3.5 Practiced
School Action Plan for disaster Practiced
management (pre-) before,
during and (post-) after
disasters happened.
2. Able to utilize information 2.31 1 Seldom 2.62 1.5 Practiced
about hazards either from signs Practiced
of nature or information from
o
local and national

authorities.e.g. Philvocs,
Pagasa
3. Efficiently and effectively 2.23 2 Seldom 2.62 1.5 Practiced
performs Standard Operating Practiced
Procedures (SOP) for warning
dissemination in school.
4. The SOP is formulated, 2.08 3.5 Seldom 2.54 3.5 Practiced
agreed, reviewed, and updated Practiced
regularly through participatory
approach of school elements.
5. Evacuation Map is posted in 1.77 5 Seldom 1.85 5 Seldom
strategic areas containing signs Practiced Practiced
and symbols easily understood
by school visitors and external
stakeholders.
Practiced Practiced

Scale Interval
Practiced
In practicing preparedness planning, this table shows the frequency and weighted mean of
School Heads, in item 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 which is “seldom practiced” the weighted mean is 2.08,
2.31, 2.23, 2.08 and 1.77 with the Average Weighted Mean (AWM) 2.092 or “seldom practiced”
in verbal interpretation.
This table also shows the preparedness planning practice of DRRM Coordinator, the rank
and weighted mean is included in this table. They say, with the weighted mean 2.54 that
availability of School Action Plan for disaster management (pre-) before, during and (post-) after
disasters happened is “practiced”. Weighted mean 2.62 in item 2 and 3 which is “practiced” in
verbal interpretation. The SOP is formulated, agreed, reviewed, and updated regularly through
participatory approach of school elements is “practiced” with the weighted mean 2.54. But in
Evacuation Map is posted in strategic areas containing signs and symbols easily understood by
o
school visitors and external stakeholders is “seldom practiced” in weighted mean 1.85. The range
from 1.85 to 2.54 have AWM 2.431 which is “seldom practiced”.
Although, the survey results in this perspective is not in same verbal interpretation in every
items, both School Heads and DRRM Coordinator is coming in common perceptions which is
“seldom practiced”.
As children spend significant amount of time in schools, the educators need to strengthen the
resilience against disasters. Have pay attention on posting information in strategic locations
within schools. Child friendly warning signs, bulletin boards, disaster preparedness materials,
evacuation maps and emergency contacts to ensure their awareness.
Table 8
Ensuring Safety of Property of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
2.3. Ensuring Safety of School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Property Mean Rank Verbal Mean Rank Verbal
1. Conducted regular school 2.31 1.5 Seldom 2.62 2 Practiced
mapping and applied Practiced
preventive measures for safety.
2. Constructed the school 2.00 4 Seldom 2.77 1 Practiced
building in strict compliance Practiced
with approved standards.
3. Installed enough fire alarm 1.85 5 Seldom 2.23 5 Seldom
system and fire extinguishers. Practiced Practiced
o
4. Secured evacuation plan and 2.31 1.5 Seldom 2.31 3.5 Seldom
emergency lights. Practiced Practiced
5. Has a storage area for 2.08 3 Seldom 2 .31 3.5 Seldom
safekeeping and protecting Practiced Practiced
supplies, materials, and
equipment against
deterioration and ensuring
accessibility when needed.
Practiced Practiced

Scale Interval
Practiced
Based on the data, the practices in the implementation of DRR in terms of ensuring safety of
property shows rank and weighted mean distribution. For the statements of School Heads, 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 with weighted mean 2.31, 2.00, 1.85, 2.31, and 2.08 is “seldom practiced” and in
Average Weighted Mean.
The data collate in this table the DRRM Coordinator have a “practiced” in statement 1 and 2
with a weighted mean of 2.62 and 2.77. Meanwhile, on statement 3, 4, and 5 which is “seldom
practiced” with the weighted mean 2.23 in two items and 2.31.
The AWM 2.108 of School Heads and AWM 2.446 of DRRM Coordinator, both “seldom
practiced” in verbal interpretation.
Table 9
DRRM Assessment of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
2.4. DRRM Assessment School Heads DRRM Coordinator

o
1. An ongoing school safety 2.23 2.5 Seldom 2.69 2 Practiced
committee has been Practiced
established to lead assessment
on disaster risk reduction and
disaster preparedness in our
school.
2. Holds regular meetings 1.85 5 Seldom 2.62 3.5 Practiced
(including staff, Practiced
parents/guardians, students and
local community leaders) to
develop and review mitigation,
preparedness and response
plans.
3. Have assessed and are 2.23 2.5 Seldom 2.77 1 Practiced
addressing physical risks Practiced
posed by building, building
non-structural elements and
building contents, and hazards
in neighborhood.
4. Have evacuation plans, 2.69 1 Practiced 2.62 3.5 Practiced
alternative evacuation areas,
evacuation routes, safe havens
with alternatives and buddy
system.
5. Have established an 1.92 4 Seldom 2.38 5 Seldom
effective communication Practiced Practiced
system for emergency,
including a warning system
whenever appropriate.
TOTAL 2.184 Seldom 2.615 Practiced
Practiced

Scale Interval
Practiced
The table shows the rank and weighted mean distribution of the responses on the practices
in the implementation of DRR in terms of DRR Assessments for School Heads. Based on the
o
table, the statements 1, 2, 3, and 5 with weighted mean 2.23, 1.85, 2.23 and 1.92 which is
“seldom practiced”. The AWM is “seldom practiced”.
Statement 1, 2, 3, and 4 is in “practiced” in verbal interpretation with the weighted mean

of 2.69, 2.62, 2.62 and 2.38. there is common weighted mean in item 3 and 4. But “seldom
practiced” in verbal interpretation for statement 5 which is 2.38 in weighted mea, the responses
on the practices in the implementation of DRR in terms of DRR Assessments for DRRM
Coordinator.
The AWM of School Heads is 2.184 or “seldom practiced” in verbal interpretation, but
DRRM Coordinator with AWM 2.615 or “practiced” in verbal interpretation. They are different
perspectives.
The findings show that School Heads not serious in making school safety committee. According
to Ministry of Education (2008) the specific functions of this committee are identify the safety
needs of the school with a view to taking the necessary action; mobilize resources required by
the school to ensure a safe, secure and caring environment for learners, staff and parents; monitor
and evaluate the various aspects of School Safety with a view to enhancing school safety; form
sustainable networks with all stakeholders to foster and sustain School Safety; keep learners,
parents and other stakeholders informed about School Safety policies and implementation
activities; seek the support of parents and stakeholders and ensure their participation in activities
relating to School Safety
Table 10
Mean Scores, Ranks and Verbal Interpretation of the Items on DRRM Implementation
about DRRM Programs, Projects, and Activities of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
3. DRRM Implementation
3.1. DRRM Programs, School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Projects, and Activities Mean Rank Verbal Mean Rank Verbal
o
1. Institutionalization policies 1.62 5 Not 2.62 2 Implemented
and programs appropriate to Implemented
DRRM.
2. Established mechanisms to 1.77 3.5 Rarely 2.38 3 Rarely
prepare DepEd constituents in Implemented Implemented
the face of disaster.
3. Programs, projects and 2.23 1 Rarely 2.08 5 Implemented
activities responds to the needs Implemented
and priorities of the
educational sector.
4. Observes successful 1.77 3.5 Rarely 2.69 1 Implemented
procedures in conducting Implemented
drills, campus evacuation,
search and rescues, relief
rehabilitation, first aid and
public information
dissemination.
5. Developed and strengthened 2.08 2 Rarely 2.23 4 Rarely
community-based disaster risk Implemented Implemented
management.
TOTAL 1.892 Rarely 2.400 Rarely
Implemented Implemented

Scale Interval
4 3.26-4.00 Fully Implemented
3 2.51-3.25 Implemented
2 1.76-2.50 Rarely Implemented
1 1.0-1.75 Not Implemented
The table shows the rank and weighted mean distribution of the responses on the
implementation of DRR in terms of DRRM Programs, Projects, and Activities for School Heads
and DRRM Coordinator.
School heads’ statements 2 with 1.77 weighted mean, 3 with 2.23 weighted mean, 4 with
1.77 weighted mean, and 5 with 2.08 weighted mean. This 4 items have “rarely implemented” in
verbal interpretation. Statement 1 with 1.62 weighted mean is “not implemented” in verbal
interpretation. The AWM is 1.892 which is “rarely implemented”.
o
Based on the data below, the DRRM Coordinators’ statements 1, 3 and 4, with weighted
mean 2.62, 2.08 and 2.69 which is “implemented” while in statement 2 and 5 have “rarely
implemented” in verbal interpretation with the weighted mean of 2.38 and 2.23.
Between the School Heads and DRRM Coordinator the implementation of DRR in terms
DRRM Programs, Projects, and Activities, the respondents have the same verbal interpretation
which is “rarely implemented” with the weighted mean of 1.892 and 2.400.
Table 11
about Physical Facilities and Equipment of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
3.2. Physical Facilities and School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Equipment Mean Rank Verbal Mean Rank Verbal
1. Physical and other temporary 2.31 2 Rarely 2.46 2.5 Rarely
venues were established for recovery Implemented Implemented
phase of the disaster.
2. School building undergo regular 2.15 3.5 Rarely 2.15 5 Rarely
inspection using School Building Implemented Implemented
Safety Checklist and damages are
repaired as discovered.
3. Have completed basic list of 1.77 5 Rarely 2.46 2.5 Rarely
equipment essential to performs Implemented Implemented
disaster and emergency response.
4. Drills are conducted under the 2.54 1 Implemented 2.31 4 Rarely
supervision of BFP and other local Implemented
stakeholders.
5. Ensures that roles and 2.15 3.5 Rarely 2.85 1 Implemented
responsibilities of external and Implemented
internal stakeholder for DRRM are
communicated and perform.

Scale Interval
o
The table show the rank and weighted mean distribution of the responses on the
implementation of DRR in terms of Physical Facilities and Equipment between the School Heads
and DRRM Coordinator.
The average weighted mean in the response of School Heads is 2.185 have “rarely
implemented in verbal interpretation. 4 out of 5 statements obtained a rating of “rarely
implemented”. In statement 4 with the weighted mean of 2.54 have “implemented” in verbal
interpretation from the statement “drills are conducted under the supervision of BFP and other
local stakeholders”.
The responses on the implementation of DRR in terms of Physical Facilities and Equipment of
DRRM Coordinator is in AWM 2.446 have “rarely implemented”. Statements 1, 2, 3, and 4 have
“rarely implemented” in verbal interpretation. But in item 5 is with 2.85 have “implemented” in
interpretation from statement “ensures that roles and responsibilities of external and internal
stakeholder for DRRM are communicated and perform”
Between the School Heads and DRRM Coordinator the implementation of DRR in terms the
Physical Facilities and Equipment respondents have the same verbal interpretation which is
“rarely implemented” with the weighted mean of 2.185 and 2.446
Table 12
about
Budget and Equipment of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
School Heads DRRM Coordinator

o
3.3. Budget Mean Rank Verbal Mean Rank Verbal

1. DRRM activities and 2.23 2.5 Rarely 1 Implemented
programs are subjected to Implemented 2.92
usual accounting and auditing
roles and regulation.
2. School Disaster management 2.23 2.5 Rarely 2.69 2 Implemented
has the full support of school Implemented
leadership.
3. Established financial 2.31 1 Rarely 2.38 3.5 Rarely
mechanism for disaster risk Implemented Implemented
reduction management.
4. The cost of incorporating 1.92 5 Rarely 2.23 5 Rarely
multi-hazard mitigation Implemented Implemented
measures are shown in
transparency board.
5. Financial reserves and 2.00 4 Rarely 2.38 3.5 Rarely
emergency funding Implemented Implemented
mechanisms are in place to
support effective preparedness
response and early recovery as
required.
TOTAL 2.138 Rarely 2.523 Implemented
Implemented

Scale Interval
implementation of DRR in terms of Budget between the School Heads and DRRM Coordinator.
For the responses of School Heads, the AWM is 2.138 have “rarely implemented”. The
respondent obtained all items as “rarely implemented”. But in the response of DRRM
Coordinator, 2 0ut of 5 items have “implemented” in verbal interpretation, in this statements ‘full
support of school leadership about School Disaster management and DRRM activities and
programs is usuallly for accounting and auditing roles and regulation. And item 3, 4, and 5 have
“rarely implemented” in verbal interpretation. The AWM is 2.523 or “implemented.
Between the School Heads and DRRM Coordinator the implementation of DRR in terms the
budget respondents have the opposite verbal interpretation which is “rarely implemented”.
o
Table 13
aboutDRRM Promotion in Teaching and Learning of School Heads and DRRM
Coordinator
3.4. DRRM Promotion in School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Teaching and Learning Mean Rank Verbal Mean Rank Verbal
1. Integrates DRRM in school 2.54 1 Implemented 2.46 1 Rarely
curricula and school activities Implemented
2. Conducted orientation, 2.23 2.5 Rarely 2.23 2.5 Rarely
workshops, and trainings for Implemented Implemented
learners related to DRRM.
3. Effective educational 2.08 5 Rarely 2.15 4 Rarely
materials were identified, Implemented Implemented
shared, adapted and localized.
4. Disaster risk reduction 2.23 2.5 Rarely 2.23 2.5 Rarely
curriculum delivery is Implemented Implemented
interactive and action-oriented
learning.
5. Up-skilling teacher for 2.15 4 Rarely 2.00 5 Rarely
effective delivery of disaster Implemented Implemented
risk reduction curriculum
involves a combination of
training in hazard-and disaster-
related content and training in
facilitation of active forms of
learning.
Q TOTAL 2.246 Rarely 2.215 Rarely

Scale Interval
o
implementation of DRR in terms of DRRM Promotion in Teaching and Learning between the
School Heads and DRRM Coordinator.
From the statement of Integrates DRRM in school curricula or school activities with
necessary support School Heads obtained as “implemented” with a weighted mean of 2.54. But
in statement 2, 3, 4, and 5 obtained as “rarely implemented”. The Average Weighted Mean is
2.246 with “rarely implemented” in verbal interpretation.
Integrates DRRM in school curricula and school activities, rank 1 for the response of DRRM
coordinator, with weighted mean 2.46 have a “rarely implemented”. In this item, the response is
opposite response of School Heads which is “implemented” in verbal interpretation. For the item
2, 3, 4, and 5 obtained as “rarely implemented”. The average weighted mean is 2.215 have
“rarely implemented” in verbal interpretation.
Table 14
Mean Scores, Ranks and Verbal Interpretation of the Items on DRRM Awareness
of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator

DRR Awareness Mean Rank Verbal Mean Rank Verbal
DRR Programs, Projects, 2.83 4 Agree 2.40 4 Disagree
and Activities
Physical Facilities and 2.92 3 Agree 2.43 3 Disagree
Equipment
Budget 2.97 2 Agree 2.69 2 Agree
DRRM Promotion in 3.11 1 Agree 2.74 1 Agree
Teaching and Learning

Scale Interval
3 2.51-3.25 Agree
o
The table 14 shows the frequency and weighted mean distribution of the responses on DRR
awareness of School Heads and DRRM coordinator.
Based on the table, DRR awareness of School Heads regarding DRR programs, projects, and
activities gained an average weighted mean of 2.83, physical facilities and equipment with 2.92,
budget with 2.97, DRRM promotion in teaching and learning with 3.11. Overall, their grand
mean collected is 2.957 which indicates that the respondents “agree” of verbal interpretation.
While, DRR awareness of DRRM coordinator regarding DRR programs, projects, and activities
gained an average weighted mean of 2.40, physical facilities and equipment with 2.43, budget
with 2.69, DRRM promotion in teaching and learning with 2.74. Overall, their grand mean
collected is 2.563 which indicates that the respondents “agree” of verbal interpretation.
Table 15
Mean Scores, Ranks and Verbal Interpretation of the Items on DRRM Practices

DRR Practices Weigh Rank Verbal Weigh Rank Verbal
ted Interpretation ted Interpretation
Mean Mean
School Policy 2.08 4 Seldom Practiced 2.34 4 Seldom Practiced
Preparedness 2.09 3 Seldom Practiced 2.43 3 Seldom Practiced
Planning
Ensuring Safety of 2.11 2 Seldom Practiced 2.45 2 Seldom Practiced
Property
DRRM Assessment 2.18 1 Seldom Practiced 2.62 1 Practiced
TOTAL 2.365 Seldom Practiced 2.458 Seldom Practiced

o
Scale Interval
Practiced
Based on the table, DRR practices of School Heads regarding school policy gained an
average weighted mean of 2.08, preparedness planning with 2.09, ensuring safety of property
with 2.11, DRRM assessment with 2.18. Overall, their grand mean collected is 2.957 which
indicates that the respondents “agree” of verbal interpretation. While, DRR practices of DRRM
coordinator regarding school policy gained an average weighted mean of 2.34, preparedness
planning with 2.43, ensuring safety of property with 2.45, DRRM assessment with 2.62. Overall,
their grand mean collected is 2.458 which indicates that the respondents “disagree” of verbal
interpretation.
Table 16

DRR Implementation Mean Rank Verbal Mean Rank Verbal
DRR Programs, Projects, 1.89 4 Rarely 2.40 3 Rarely
and Activities Implemented Implemented
Physical Facilities and 2.19 2 Rarely 2.45 2 Rarely
Equipment Implemented Implemented
Budget 2.14 3 Rarely 2.52 1 Implemented
Implemented
DRRM Promotion in 2.25 1 Rarely 2.22 4 Rarely
Teaching and Learning Implemented Implemented
o

Scale Interval
Based on the table, DRR awareness of School Heads regarding DRR programs, projects, and
activities gained an average weighted mean of 1.89, physical facilities and equipment with 2.19,
budget with 2.14, DRRM promotion in teaching and learning with 2.25. Overall, their grand
mean collected is 2.115 which indicates that the respondents “disagree” of verbal interpretation.
While, DRR awareness of DRRM coordinator regarding DRR programs, projects, and activities
gained an average weighted mean of 2.40, physical facilities and equipment with 2.45, budget
with 2.52, DRRM promotion in teaching and learning with 2.22. Overall, their grand mean
collected is 2.396 which indicates that the respondents “agree” of verbal interpretation.
Table 17
Correlation Between DRRM Awareness, Practices, and Implementation
of School Heads and DRRM Coordinators
Scores Paired r - value Level of Correlation

School Heads
vs 0.136 Negligible Correlation
DRRM Coordinators
Point Interval Level of Correlation

± 1.00 Perfect of Correlation
± 0.91 to ± 0.99 Very High Correlation
± 0.61 to ± 0.90 High Correlation
o
± 0.41 to ± 0.60 Moderate Correlation

± 0.21 to ± 0.40 Low Correlation
± 0.01 to ± 0.20 Negligible Correlation
Table 15 shows the correlation between DRRM Awareness, Practices, and Implementation
of School Heads and DRRM Coordinators. The computed coefficient of correlation or r-value
was 0.136 which denotes a negligible correlation and implies no relationship based on the range
of values which registered at the 0.01 to 0.20 range of correlation.
B. ANALYSIS
A. Demographic Profile of the Respondents
Age of Respondents
For the profile under age, Most of the school heads fell under age bracket 31-5 years old.
It can be noted that in terms of age, there is more matured staff in terms of higher position
especially for School Heads who have intense pressure in meeting the achievements and the most
challenging role which requires not just acquired knowledge but knowledge from lived
experiences. Compared to DRRM Coordinators, majority of them belongs to 26-30 years old
bracket (31%) which is suitable for their roles and responsibilities.
Gender
The profile variable sex is also considered in this study which is deemed important. It can
be gleaned from the data in the table 4.1 that there are more females 92 (85%) for school heads,
whereas their male counterpart is 2 (15%). In a study by Shaked and Glanz (2018), stated that
female leaders practice more leadership skills of decision making, individualize consideration,
and interpersonal interaction compared to male leaders. Moreover, substantial proportion of
female principal’s linked instructional leadership to the maintenance of positive relationships
with the school staff, which involves partnership, empowering others, and various forms of
cooperation. Their findings reflect women’s general tendency to strive to be more socially liked
in their interactions with others.1
1
Shaked, Haim & Glanz, Jeffrey & Gross, Zehavit. (2018). Gender differences in instructional leadership: how male
and female principals perform their instructional leadership role. School Leadership & Management. 1-18.
10.1080/13632434.2018.1427569.
o
Compared to DRRM Coordinators, with a frequency of 10 or 77% which suits to the kind of
job they do since the candidate must have demonstrated experience working in
emergencies/refugee settings and should be confident with emergency response 2 which is
likely more of a male candidate.
Position/Designation
School Heads must have an experience of at least five (5) years in the aggregate as Head
Teacher, Teacher-In-Charge, Master Teacher and Teacher III, in the tabulation, 31% were Head
Teacher I, Principal I and Teacher In-Charge. Compared DRRM Coordinators, their experiences
are not that lengthy compared to School heads as shown in the data with 92% are Teacher I.
Number of Years in Teaching/Service
Results showed the Number of Years in Teaching/service for school heads with 46% for
19 years and above which is related their position as Head Teacher I, Principal I and Teacher In-
Charge for 31% given the fact the number of years to achieve the designation for a period of
time. While the DRRM coordinator earlier with the frequency on age bracket 26-30 years old
with a percentage of 46 percent shows relationship on the DRRM coordinators designation with
the number of years in service for 4 to 6 years (54%).
Number of trainings/Seminars attended about DRRM
School heads and Drrm coordinators should have the same number of trainings; they
should collaborate with each other since they are working with the same umbrella under
education. Based on the result of the survey, 54% of the respondent have 1-3 trainings attended.
B. DRRM Awareness
2
https://www.devex.com/jobs/disaster-risk-reduction-drr-coordinator-557024
o
On items 1,2 and 3, results show different answers from school heads and drrm
coordinators. School Heads “agreed” on all items from 1 to 3 with question. Question number 2
ranks number 1 that “there is no good example of actionable assessments and recommendations
as they are not applied immediately” while Drrm Coordinators response to this question ranks
number 4 as “disagreed”.
The reason behind this should be further investigated in continuation of this research study.
The School Heads responsibilities include being “Responsible for employees and visitors’
healthy, safety and welfare” and Establish procedures and regular drills for emergencies and
disasters while DRRM coordinators. Thus, it could be one reason that this item ranks number
one since they are not aware of the full-scope and responsibilities of DRRM coordinator with a
whole lot of responsibilities that the School Heads should do. Ranking in Fifth place is item
number four, “School drills lose directions, because it varies widely in efficacy due to lack of
(evidence-based) standards, or failing to use the drill as a learning opportunity” both answered,
“agreed.”
Yet this ranks number 1 for DRRM Coordinator. According to napsonline.org, there is a
difference between crises that are possible and those that are more probable, and exercises are
most useful when based on a vulnerability assessment that identifies the types of risks or
potential hazards that have a probability of occurring in a specific community. 3 This could be the
reason that drills lose its direction because it doesn’t happen often. In their article,
3. DRRM Awareness about Physical Facilities and Equipment of School Heads and DRRM
Coordinator
3
https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-and-podcasts/school-climate-safety-and-
crisis/systems-level-prevention/conducting-crisis-exercises-and-drills
o
Regular monitoring or hazards mapping is not performed ranked number one from DRRM
coordinator and got a verbal interpretation as agreed on both sides. According to the manual, the
team shall conduct an annual student-led risk identification and mapping within and around the
school premises to ensure a safe environment that is conducive to teaching and learning; 4 Hence,
the rules and responsibilities should be properly understood as the DRRM coordinator itself
agreed that this area has been poorly managed which could risk the safety of the students and
teachers. The DRRM Coordinator “disagreed” on facilities reconstruction for resiliency is not
well understood ranks number 5.This means that Drrm Coordinator fully understood on the need
for reconstruction of facilities for resiliency in which the School heads result is “agreed” which
is very true since this is handled foremost by the DRRM coordinator especially on the
monitoring and evaluation process which is conducted yearly according to the Disaster Risk
Reduction Resource Manual.5 While both disagreed on “Inadequate physical resources to
implement DRRM plans and activities on evacuation and response. School Heads agreed on
Upgrading fund for facilities and equipment not available or cut off and ranks as number 1 which
is opposite to the DRRM coordinator.
4. DRRM Awareness about Budget of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
School Heads “agreed” that funding for upgrading facilities and equipment are not
available or cut off which ranked as number one since the focus on DRRM is for the safetyness
and welfare of the students and educators. Both agreed on this item. Meanwhile, Delays of
procurement of equipment due to the bureaucratic process of funding. Delays of procurement of
4
http://depedbohol.org/v2/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/DRRM-Manual_Booklet-1_Final-1.pdf
5
http://psba.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Disaster-Risk-Reduction-Resource-Manual-2008.pdf
o
equipment due to the bureaucratic process of funding ranks number 5 by DRRM coordinator
both has different response as agreed by School heads and disagreed by DRRM coordinator.
Reasons could be that they differ in needs when you say hazardous risk compared to training and
funding’s for seminars may take a while and may undergo unnecessary procedure.
5. DRRM Awareness about DRRM Promotion in Teaching and Learning of School

Heads and DRRM Coordinator
In DRRM promotion in Teaching and Learning the School Heads “agreed” which ranked
number one that Materials for teaching and integrating DRRM in subjects are not readily
available as to the DRRM coordinators, this ranked as number five with verbal interpretation
“disagree”. On the manual, DepEd has a repository of learning materials not just for DRR but for
all education subjects. They highly advised to download materials to help DRRM coordinators
design DRR activities in class from http://www.lrmds.deped.gov.ph/. 6 However, they encourage
creating their own material and sharing the materials students, school DRRM team so it may
benefit to other schools as well. Therefore, we highly advised the DRRM to collaborate with
school heads to implement materials that is needed for the student’s learning and awareness.
Ranks number 1 is item number 5, Lacks monitoring, if DRRM is promoted in teaching
and learning. Stated in the manual, DepEd Order no. 5 s. 2014 provides us with guidelines in
integrating the Gulayan sa Paaralan, ecological solid waste management and tree growing and
caring as key components to attain the goals of DepEd on food security, biodiversity
conservation and climate change mitigation and adaptation. 7Hence, from their response DRRM
should be promoted with the programs indicated and not indicated in the manual.
6
7
Ibid.
o
6. DRRM Practices about School Policy of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
School Heads responded as seldom practiced rank number one on School strictly
follows the mandates for promoting disaster resilient school. Both designations have the same
response which needs to improve their practices the purposed of this appointment of DRRM
coordinator will be deemed futile. The DRRM is implemented for Safe Learning Facilities Pillar,
School Disaster Management and Disaster Risk Reduction in Education.
School policy can be readily adjusted to address changes in the needs of stakeholder’s
ranks number 1 but the DRRM response was ‘practiced”. Thus, the stakeholders were the
parents, school administrators, board members, local government officials, alumni and socio-
civic groups who contribute to the development of the school community. DRRM
implementation undergoes regular monitoring and evaluation ranks number five as seldom
practiced. Thus, DRRM programmes should be evaluated to ensure safetyness and its
effectiveness.
7. DRMM Practices about Preparedness Planning of School Heads and DRRM

Coordinator
The item number 2 “Able to utilize information about hazards either from signs of nature
or information from local and national authorities.e.g. Philvocs, Pagasa” ranks number one with
seldom practiced from School Heads and Practiced by DRRM coordinator since they have
undergone the needed training for this designation yet as a Head of the school, principals should
o
practice this in ensuring proper judgement especially when calamities arise to whether advise the
public for no class due to the signs of nature or what not.
Both designations responded, Seldom Practiced and rank as number five, “Evacuation
Map is posted in strategic areas containing signs and symbols easily understood by school
visitors and external stakeholders.” According to cdph.c.a.gov, it is critical that schools identify
safe areas where students and staff should go in a crisis. It also is important that schools practice
having staff and students evacuate the premises in an orderly manner. The two designations
should implement an evacuation map especially that public schools cater larger number of
students from primary, junior and Senior High school.
8. DRRM Practices about Ensuring Safety of Property of School Heads and DRRM
Coordinator
Based on the data, school heads and drrm coordinator seldom practiced on securing
evacuation plan and emergency lights which ranks number one for school heads. As shown in
Table 7 both responded seldom practiced on “Evacuation Map is posted in strategic areas
containing signs and symbols easily understood by school visitors and external stakeholders”.
This is highly evident to implement an evacuation map in their respective school.
However, the drrm coordinator constructed the school building in strict compliance with
approved standards with a response of “practice” ranks number one. This is in response to pillar
1, providing Safe Learning Facilities. It refers to the physical and other related structures of the
schools. It also includes the establishment of temporary learning spaces that can be used during
possible displacement brought by disasters and/or emergencies. Here, education authorities,
architects, engineers, builders and school community members undertake safe site selection,
design, construction, and maintenance of school structures and ensure safe and continuous access
to the facility (DO 37 s 2015)8
9. DRRM Assessment of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
8
o
In DRRM assessment, there is inconsistency in the answer of both designations on the item,”
Have evacuation plans, alternative evacuation areas, evacuation routes, safe havens with
alternatives and buddy system. With the response “practiced. Based on their previous response,
“seldom practice on securing evacuation plan but in this assessment they do have alternative
evacuation areas, evacuation routes, safe havens with alternatives and buddy system.
Staying together after an evacuation is important, because it enables the head counters to

get an accurate account of everyone who should have left the building, and helps the head
counters pass along information to emergency personnel about how many people are left in the
building, and where those people might be. 9 You do have the buddy system, evacuation areas
but do not have evacuation plan, then there is no point of direction for the exit area is very
difficult when a real disaster arise.
DRRM Coordinator responded seldom practice on having established an effective

communication system for emergency, including a warning system whenever appropriate.
According to Koorsen Fire and Security, in the past, emergency communications systems in
most buildings relied primarily on a combination of alarms, signage, and intercom systems. But
through the advancement of technology, one-way emergency messages delivered in real-time via
the telephone, a text message, an email, reader boards, or by television or radio thru MNS, mass
notification systems. According to their article, Alerts and Warnings Are Not the Same Thing.
An alert is intended to grab people's attention in an emergency situation and to notify them that
there is important information they need to receive. Meanwhile, warning is the important
information following the alert -- a message intended to provide instruction on the situation and
how to respond.10 With these findings, the researcher highly recommends to implement an
effective communication system whenever appropriate.
10. DRRM Programs, Projects, and Activities of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
In the perspective of School Heads, DRRM Programs, Projects, and Activities are rarely
implemented. This item ranks number one, “Programs, projects and activities respond to the
9
https://safetymanagement.eku.edu/blog/the-importance-of-having-an-evacuation-plan/
10
https://blog.koorsen.com/how-to-clearly-and-effectively-communicate-emergency-situations-in-businesses-and-
schools
o
needs and priorities of the educational sector.” In which the other designation responded the
other way as Implemented.
The programs under DRRM includes, Student-led Activities, Staff Training Support for
(TEACHING AND NON-TEACHING PERSONNEL), Education Continuity Plan (ECP), the
Co-Curricular Activities; Events which may be relevant are the World Environment Day and
Safe Kids Week in June; the National Disaster Consciousness; Month in July; Clean and Green
Month in September; National Simultaneous Earthquake Drill in November, and the Fire
Prevention Month in March. Their national program includes Gulayan sa Paaralan, ecological
solid waste management and tree growing and caring. 11If this is not implemented in the school
then the School Head would respond as “seldom practiced.”
Thus, this should be implemented in every school to attain the goals of DepEd on food
security, biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Institutionalization policies and programs appropriate to DRRM in school heads perpective

ranks number 1 and responded as never implemented. DRRM coordinator responded as
Implemented. Thus, the two designations should further collaborate as needed to come up with
their own programmes and policies within their institution. Meanwhile, ranks number for DRRM
coordinator is item, “Observes successful procedures in conducting drills, campus evacuation,
search and rescues, relief rehabilitation, first aid and public information dissemination.” As
Implemented.
11. DRRM Implementation about Physical Facilities and Equipment of School Heads and
DRRM Coordinator
The responses on the implementation of DRR in terms of Physical Facilities and Equipment of
DRRM Coordinator is in AWM 2.446 have “rarely implemented”. Statements 1, 2, 3, and 4 have
“rarely implemented” in verbal interpretation. But in item 5 is with 2.85 have “implemented” in
interpretation from statement “ensures that roles and responsibilities of external and internal
stakeholder for DRRM are communicated and perform yet school heads responded as Rarely
Implemented in this item. Stake holders could be the community, the organization, students,
11
o
educators and parents. Drills are conducted under the supervision of BFP and other local
stakeholders were implemented according to school heads which could be earthquake drill, fire
drill. DRRM coordinator responded as rarely implemented. These drills are ways of students
learning when a possible disaster arises for their own safeness.
. The item “Have completed basic list of equipment essential to perform disaster and
emergency response” ranked number five with a verbal interpretation of Rarely Implemented on
both sides. This means that our schools are not properly equip for disaster preparedness. Item,
“School building undergoes regular inspection using School Building Safety Checklist and
damages are repaired as discovered.” Ranked number five as Rarely Implemented. Prior to
Mayon Volcano’s volcanic activity, lots of report and social media posts regarding earthquake.
Most earthquake-induced building damage, however, is a result of ground shaking. When the
ground shakes at a building site, the building's foundations vibrate in a manner that's similar to
the surrounding ground. Brittle elements tend to break and lose strength. 12 Thus, this item should
be implemented to avoid risk on the safeness of students and educators.
12. Budget and Equipment of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
School heads responded Rarely Implemented on item, “. Established financial mechanism
for disaster risk reduction management ranks number one. Last 2016, there were insufficient
budget in NDRRMC, the council said only about P5.8 billion is left of the calamity fund which is
not enough to cover the needs of areas recovering from disasters from the 23 billion allocation
budget. This means that two-thirds of the DRRM fund had already been used in the first 3
months of the year. Hence, this is evident of the lack of financial mechanism. The cost of
12
https://www.interiorsandsources.com/article-details/articleid/9383/title/how-earthquakes-affect-buildings
o
incorporating multi-hazard mitigation measures are shown in transparency board ranks as
number five from school heads perspective as well as the DRRM Coordinator. Prevention and
mitigation in schools begins with: Knowing which hazards and risks the school is exposed to
(hazard mapping); Meeting with all stakeholders in education and making plans to reduce those
hazards and risks; and implementing plans to reduce vulnerabilities.13 Ranks number one from
the DRRM Coordinator’s perspective is item number one with verbal interpretation as
implemented,” DRRM activities and programs are subjected to usual accounting and auditing
roles and regulation. “in which the school heads responded as rarely implemented. Based on the
manual, Under the Resource and Logistics Officer shall be the Fund Sourcing Team,
Transportation Team and Supplies and Relief Team should provide accounting and auditing rules
and regulations relative to fund utilization in coordination with concerned agencies.14
13. DRRM Promotion in Teaching and Learning of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
In DRRM Promotion in Teaching and Learning, item number one ranks as number one in
both designation, “Integrates DRRM in school curricula and school activities.” With School
Heads as Implemented and DRRM Coordinator as rarely implemented. The gulayan sa paaralan
could be integrated in the T.L.E subject, planting trees could be integrated in the earth sciences
and so forth. Due to the number of years in service, it would be easier for School Heads to
integrate DRRM in curricula and school activities compared to DRRM for only a few years in
service. Hence, collaboration is needful in this matter. Ranks in fifth from School Heads is item ,
“Effective educational materials were identified, shared, adapted and localized” with the same
response on both designation as rarely implemented. As mentioned from the previous table on
13
http://psba.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Disaster-Risk-Reduction-Resource-Manual-2008.pdf
14
Ibid.
o
promotion in teaching and learning, DRRRM should create its own material and share it to
students and educator. Ranks number fifth in the DRRM perspective is item,” Up-skilling
teacher for effective delivery of disaster risk reduction curriculum involves a combination of
training in hazard-and disaster-related content and training in facilitation of active forms of
learning.” as rarely implemented. Up skilling is the process of teaching current employees new
skills. Skilled teachers are an extremely powerful tool because they have a direct influence on the
next generation. So, this should be further implemented.
14. DRRM Awareness of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator
The results shows that both designation are aware of DRRM Promotion in Teaching
and Learning followed by Budget and has different sides when it comes to Physical Facilities
and Equipment and DRR Programs, Projects, and Activities. This is evident as the item ranked 3
and 4 are narrowed to the responsibilities of the DRRM which could be unknown to School
heads.
15. Mean Scores, Ranks and Verbal Interpretation of the Items on DRRM Practices

DRR Practices Weigh Rank Verbal Weigh Rank Verbal
ted Interpretation ted Interpretation
Mean Mean
School Policy 2.08 4 Seldom Practiced 2.34 4 Seldom Practiced
Preparedness 2.09 3 Seldom Practiced 2.43 3 Seldom Practiced
Planning
Ensuring Safety of 2.11 2 Seldom Practiced 2.45 2 Seldom Practiced
Property
DRRM Assessment 2.18 1 Seldom Practiced 2.62 1 Practiced
o
TOTAL 2.365 Seldom Practiced 2.458 Seldom Practiced

Scale Interval
Practiced
The same results are shown in the table when in it comes to ranking but what differs is the
verbal interpretation in DRRM assessment. School Heads response is Seldom Practiced while
DRRM’s response boils down to practice. Yet, there should be collaboration as the school head of an
institution should know all the activities in her school or what was being assessed or not.
16. Mean Scores, Ranks and Verbal Interpretation of the Items on DRRM Implementation

DRR Implementation Mean Rank Verbal Mean Rank Verbal
DRR Programs, Projects, 1.89 4 Rarely 2.40 3 Rarely
and Activities Implemented Implemented
Physical Facilities and 2.19 2 Rarely 2.45 2 Rarely
Equipment Implemented Implemented
Budget 2.14 3 Rarely 2.52 1 Implemented
Implemented
DRRM Promotion in 2.25 1 Rarely 2.22 4 Rarely
Teaching and Learning Implemented Implemented

o
Scale Interval
The results showed relation in terms of “Budget” which ranks number one from DRRM
Coordinator. Since it deals with risk management on muti-hazards, budget allocation really
matters while the School heads deals with the implementation and welfare of students education
and curricula reflects DRRM Promotion in Teaching and Learning as rank number one.
17 Correlation Between DRRM Awareness, Practices, and Implementation
of School Heads and DRRM Coordinators
Scores Paired r - value Level of Correlation

School Heads
vs 0.136 Negligible Correlation
DRRM Coordinators
Point Interval Level of Correlation

± 1.00 Perfect of Correlation
± 0.91 to ± 0.99 Very High Correlation
± 0.61 to ± 0.90 High Correlation
± 0.41 to ± 0.60 Moderate Correlation
± 0.21 to ± 0.40 Low Correlation
± 0.01 to ± 0.20 Negligible Correlation
The computed coefficient of correlation or r-value was 0.136 which denotes a negligible
correlation and implies no relationship based on the range of values which registered at the 0.01
o
to 0.20 range of correlation. Thus these reflects the hypothesis in this study, there is no
significant relationship among the level of awareness and practices in the implementation of
disaster risk reduction program in Patnanungan district between the heads of school and drrm
coordinator.
o
CHAPTER V
Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
A. Summary of Findings
1. Profile of the School Heads and DRRM coordinators
a. The majority of the respondents were aged 26 to 30 and 31 to 35 years old which is 7 or
27 percent of the total sample.
b. There were 12 or 46 percent males and 14 or 54 percent females the participants in
terms
of gender is not fairly presented
c. Most of the respondents were Teacher I which is 16 (62 %)
d. Most respondents’ years in teaching/service were 4-6 years which is 9 or 35 percent
e. Out of 26, 15 respondents’ highest educational attainment is earned units in MA/MS
which is 58 percent
f. Majority of the respondents only 1-3 of trainings/seminars attended about DRRM which
is 17 or 65 percent.
2. area of DRRM Awareness
2.1. DRR programs, projects, and activities with a weighted mean of 2.832 described as
“agree” for School heads; and weighted mean of 2.396 described a “disagree” for
DRRM coordinator
2.2. Physical facilities and equipment with a weighted mean of 2.922 described as “agree”
for School heads; and weighted mean of 2.428 described a “disagree” for DRRM
coordinator
2.3. Budget with a weighted mean of 2.966 described as “agree” for School heads; and
weighted mean of 2.690 described a “agree” for DRRM coordinator
2.4. DRRM promotion in teaching and learning with a weighted mean of 3.106 described
as “agree” for School heads; and weighted mean of 2.736 described a “agree” for
o
DRRM coordinators
3. DRR practices
3.1. School policy with a weighted mean of 2.076 described as “seldom practiced” for
School heads; and weighted mean of 2.338 described a “seldom practiced” for
DRRM coordinator
3.2. Preparedness Planning with a weighted mean of 2.092 described as “seldom
practiced” for School heads; and weighted mean of 2.431 described a “seldom
practiced” for DRRM coordinators
3.3. Ensuring safety of property with a weighted mean of 2.108 described as “seldom
practiced” for School heads; and weighted mean of 2.446 described a “seldom
practiced” for DRRM coordinators
3.4. DRRM assessment with a weighted mean of 2.184 described as “seldom practiced”
for School heads; and weighted mean of 2.615 described a “seldom practiced” for
DRRM coordinator
4. DRRM Implementation
4.1. DRRM programs, projects, and activities with a weighted mean of 1.892 described as
“rarely implemented” for School heads; and weighted mean of 2.400 described a
“rarely implemented” for DRRM coordinators.
4.2. Physical facilities and equipment with a weighted mean of 2.185 described as “rarely
implemented” for School heads; and weighted mean of 2.446 described a “rarely
implemented” for DRRM coordinator
4.3. Budget with a weighted mean of 2.135 described as “rarely implemented” for School
heads; and weighted mean of 2.523 described a “implemented” for DRRM
coordinator
4.4. DRRM promotion in teaching and learning with a weighted mean of 2.246 described as
“rarely implemented” for School heads; and weighted mean of 2.215 described a
“rarely implemented” for DRRM coordinators.
5. Correlation between DRRM awareness, practices, and implementation of school heads and
DRRM coordinators are negligible correlation.
6. The DRRM district proposed program aimed to generate concrete policies, mechanism,
and programs to developed goal oriented and localized DRRM policies in lined with
o
the national, Regional, local DRR policy. Strengthen DRRM concerning responses and
mitigation benefited for learners and stakeholders to produce citizens who already
equipped with necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes for DRR.
B. Conclusions
Based from the findings, the researcher made the following conclusions.
1. The school heads and DRRM coordinators are both agree in terms of DRR awareness about
DRR programs, projects, and activities, physical facilities and equipment, budget and
DRRM promotion in teaching and learning.
2. The school heads and DRRM coordinators, they are seldom practiced in term of DRRM
practices about, school policy, preparedness planning, ensuring safety of property, and
DRRM assessment.
3. The school heads and DRRM coordinators are rarely implemented the DRR
implementation of: DRR programs, projects, and activities, physical facilities and
equipment, budget and DRRM promotion in teaching and learning.
4. There is no correlation between school heads and DRR coordinators in term of DRR
awareness, DRR practices, and DRR implementation.
5. The district proposed DRR program had been developed.
C. Recommendation
Based from the conclusions of the study, the researcher formulated the following
recommendations:
1. The developed proposed DRR program may be adopted to enchance the DRRM of District
of Patnanungan
2. Stakeholder may be involved by informing the importance DRR.
3. The proposed DRR program may be formulated to strengthen the areas that needed
improvement.
4. Further studies regarding the assessing implementation of DRRM may be conducted for
further improvement of the questionnaire.
o

Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

o

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

A. Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Head Teacher I 4 31 2 0 0 7.5

Head Teacher II 1 8 4 0 0 7.5

Number of Years in Teaching/Service

Got a high percentage in teaching/service is 4 to 6 years which is 7 or 54 percent. 3 or 23 percent

Highest Educational Attainment

Number of trainings/Seminars attended about DRRM

DRRM Coordinators: Among respondent there is 11 or 85 percent where is 1-3

1.1. DRR Programs, Projects, School Heads DRRM Coordinator

alone without including process.

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

1.2. Physical Facilities and School Heads DRRM Coordinator

facilities and equipment are not

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

1.3. Budget School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

1.4. DRRM Promotion in School Heads DRRM Coordinator

not readily available.

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

According to the UNESCO Director General, Koichiro Matsuura (UNESCO 2007),

School Policy of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator

2.1. School Policy School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

The group of respondents have a same verbal interpretation which is “seldom

Geneva, (UNODRR) There would be no disaster resilience without effective

Preparedness Planning of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator

2.2. Preparedness Planning School Heads DRRM Coordinator

local and national

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

Ensuring Safety of Property of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator

2.3. Ensuring Safety of School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

DRRM Assessment of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator

2.4. DRRM Assessment School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

Statement 1, 2, 3, and 4 is in “practiced” in verbal interpretation with the weighted mean

3.1. DRRM Programs, School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

3.2. Physical Facilities and School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

Budget and Equipment of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator

School Heads DRRM Coordinator

3.3. Budget Mean Rank Verbal Mean Rank Verbal

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

3.4. DRRM Promotion in School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator

School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator

School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

of School Heads and DRRM Coordinator

School Heads DRRM Coordinator

Point Range Verbal Interpretation

Correlation Between DRRM Awareness, Practices, and Implementation

of School Heads and DRRM Coordinators

Scores Paired r - value Level of Correlation

Point Interval Level of Correlation

± 0.41 to ± 0.60 Moderate Correlation

A. Demographic Profile of the Respondents