CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Introduction

School safety broadly covers the security of the school environment,

infrastructure and school-based activities. According to Chukwu (2008), a safe school is

characterized by working facilities and inherent order, mitigation mechanisms against

injury and unrest through a fostering, kind and concerned staff. Republic of Kenya

(2008), defines school safety as arrangements made by the school community to manage

potentially harmful and traumatizing situations. In schools, unsafe situations are deemed

as adverse happenings that cause considerable disruptions to learning. The students and

school staff often times are the most affected by these unsafe situations.

Safety programmes improve on the awareness levels, management of accidents

and reduction of the resultant damages (Armstrong, 2000). Schools safeguard the learners

under their care through their safe and secure surroundings (UNICEF,2008). Safety in the

school premises promotes the learning environment in schools. Melden (2012) argues

that, safety concerns facing learning institutions are diverse and varied. “A number of

countries have developed cross-sectional, national, regional or local strategies of

implementing school safety” (Omolo & Simatwa, 2010). This has largely been informed

by incidents affecting school safety in different countries. World over, policies and

guidelines that underscore the safety needs of students, staff and the physical

infrastructure have been methodically formulated.

1
 Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) plays an important role in the

implementation the national school safety programs and policies. The Bureau of Justice

Statistics (BJS) develops yearly pointers of school criminality and security data. In 2014

the US Congress established comprehensive school safety initiative, which is an optional

grant program administered by the National Institute of Justice, the DOJ research arm, to

investigate the possible root causes and effects of school violence and its impact on

school safety and devise effective ways to safeguard schools from all forms of threats and

hazards (Brock, Kriger & Miro, 2017). United States of America Department of

Education (U.S.D.E) demands strict enforcement of safety policies on physical facilities

in learning institutions to manage various perilous situations (Schneider, 2002).

From the report, 7% of all buildings were found to be at risk (OECD, 2003.

Moreover, the Boko Haram insurgents had been destroying schools from 2009.This

involved arson and damaging of school facilities. As a mitigating measure, Safe School

Initiative was introduced, to transfer students from high-risk states to safe schools in

other parts of the country (Anyanwu, 2016). In other areas for example in Rwanda, it has

developed “Child friendly schools infrastructure standards and guidelines 2009” for

primary and lower secondary schools (Rwanda Ministry of Education, 2009). Every

school is expected to have appropriate, sufficient and secure buildings.

Meanwhile, Managing Safety in Higher Education Institutions: A Case in the

Philippines. In Higher Education Institutions (HEI's) are often regarded as sanctuaries,

protected environments where young people explore great ideas and make lifelong

friendships and learnings. A student friendly school takes the lead in shaping a learning

environment that enables students to learn as much as their intellectual faculties could

2
take. It is the kind of environment that allows them to grow healthy and equips

them with knowledge and skills that they can use throughout life, and enables them to

become responsible and productive members of their community and society. In the

research conducted wherein the number of safety accidents at school has consistently

increased as years pass by from 69,487 accidents in 2009 to 77,496 accidents in 2010,

86,468 accidents in 2011, 100,365 accidents in 2012, 105,088 accidents in 2013, 116,527

accidents in 2014, and 116,527 accident in 2015.

On the other hand, the Commission off Higher Education (CHED). CHED and its

regional commissioners, trustees of state colleges and universities, and heads of private

schools around the country have been advised to see to it that “preventive and protective”

measures are carried out to ensure safety of students and teachers. Moreover, it was also

indicated Republic Act (RA) No. 7722 otherwise known as Higher Education Act of

1994, Batas Pambansa 232, and Resolution No. 321-2013 that CHED has the utmost

commitment to promote quality and relevant and efficient higher education in the

Philippines. However, in the policies, standards, and guidelines of CHED under

memorandum orders specifically on engineering programs, there were limited emhpasis

on the standard safety practices. On the other hand, the Manual of Operations for Private

Higher Education (MORPHE) under CHED Memorandum Order No. 40, Series 2008

which was registered at the Office of the National Administrative Registrar (ONAR) on

October 17, 2008 and published in the Official Gazette on November 24, 2008

emphasized safety related standards that mandates private higher education institutions.

The purpose of this study is to identify what are the implementation of safety

guidelines in physical infrastructure as perceived by the Bachelor of Physical Education

3
students. Its goal is to figure out how the safety guidelines in school influences Physical

Education students' awareness as well their safety.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to pay attention in the implementations of safety guidelines in

physical infrastructure in Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology San Isidro

Campus.

Specifically, the study aimed to:

1. How may the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents be described

in terms of:

1.1 age;

1.2 sex; and

1.3 year level?

2. How may the factors affecting physical infrastructure safety in be described in

terms of;

2.1 Communication channel;

2.2 Funding of safety programmes; and

2.3 Safety equipment?

3. What are the observations of the respondents in safety measures in the campus?

4. Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and their

observation about safety measures in the campus?

4
 Hypothesis of the Study

1. There is no significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and

their observation about safety measures in the campus.

Conceptual Framework

In this study the researchers formulated a conceptual framework using the input-

process-output model to function as analytical framework to know the implementations

of safety guidelines in the physical infrastructure in Nueva Ecija University of Science

and Technology San Isidro Campus.

Figure 1 provides working paradigm of the research study and both dependent and

independent variable. The researcher used input, process output system. The input

contains the profile of the respondents which include age, sex, year level, and course.

The process includes acquiring of data through distributed survey questionnaires

and the output was provided envisage study.

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

1. Demographic Analyzing data by: Different ways to

characteristics of the enhance strict
respondents -Data gathering using implementation of
printed copy of physical infrastructure
2. Factors affecting questions. safety in school.
physical
infrastructure safety - Use of any data
in school in terms of; collective strategies like
survey and
3. Observation of the questionnaires.
respondents in safety
measures in the
campus.

5
 Figure 1. Paradigm of the Study
Significance of the Study

This study is important because it aimed to provides knowledge about the

implementation of safety guidelines in school.

This research study will give great benefits to the following:

To the teachers. This would help the teacher to know the insights of their

students also it will give them additional information on possible problems if the safety

guidelines is not followed by students. It is also help them to be well prepared and ready.

To the parents. This will help to inform the parents and them knowledge to know

what are the safety guidelines that the school must have and these guidelines affects their

children.

To the students. The research will help them to have insights about the

importance of having a safety guidelines and safety manuals in school in order to have a

safe school.

To the future researcher. The result of the study could provide data that would

useful for the other. Researchers this research could serve as their guide about the topic.

Scope and Delimitation

The main objective of this study is to provide information about the

implementation of safety guidelines in physical infrastructure in the school. The

researcher limited the study to all Bachelor of Physical Education students in all levels of

Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology – San Isidro Campus for the

academic year 2022-2023.

6
Definition of Terms

Alcohol Dispenser- It used to dispense any alcohol-based sanitizer

Automatic Breaker Switch- also known as the automatic switch and is a type of

electrical remote-control switch.

Effectiveness- Timely attainment of desired results as benchmarked against set goals and

policy guidelines.

Emergency Hotline Poster- useful contacts for your ... Insert all the numbers needed and

hang this poster on the wall.

Equipment- the necessary items for a particular purpose.

Exhaust Fan- work by removing unwanted odors, moisture, smoke and other pollutants

in the air.

First aid kits- are essential for any home, car, work, and travel.

Fire Alarm- system warns people when smoke, fire, carbon monoxide or other fire-

related or general notification emergency emergencies are detected.

Fire Sprinkle Water System- system is an active fire protection method, consisting of

a water supply system, providing adequate pressure and flowrate to a water.

Fire extinguishers- is a handheld active fire protection device usually filled with a dry or

wet chemical used to extinguish or control small fires.

7
Generator- a machine that converts one form of energy into another, especially

mechanical energy into electrical energy, as a dynamo, or electrical energy into sound, as

an acoustic generator

Guidelines- a general rule, principle, or piece of advice.

Harmful- causing or capable of causing harm; injurious.

Lab rooms- used for laboratory applications, research, and/or training in a research

methodology that requires special-purpose equipment.

Lab glasses- with additional features and style for increased security, comfort, and

wearer acceptance

Metal Detector- are useful for finding metal objects on the surface, underground, and

under water.

Mitigating- having the effect of making something bad less severe, serious, or painful.

Physical Infrastructure- refers to the physical availability and quality of public

facilities, including the number of facilities, and the appropriate mix of facility types to

meet population health needs.

Policies- A source or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party,

business, or individual.

Premises- a house or building, together with its land and outbuildings, occupied by a

business or considered in an official context.

Pressure water hose- is high tensile wire braided, it's durable and heavy duty, able to

support quite high working pressure

8
Safety gloves- protect against skin absorption of chemicals, chemical burns, thermal

burns, lacerations, and cryogenic liquid exposure.

Security cameras- closed-circuit television cameras are a form of surveillance that uses

an external camera to transmit footage or images to a recording device.

Safety lock doors- a bolt that cannot be moved from outside the door or gate. synonyms:

safety bolt. type of bolt, deadbolt.

Safety signages- must be noticeable, easy to read, and in many cases comply with OSHA

standards.

Safety precautions- can be divided into organizational measures, technical protective

measures and the use of personal equipment.

Sand Buckets- is a steel bucket filled with sand which is used to put out fires.

Stretchers- gurney, litter, or pram is an apparatus used for moving patients who require

medical care.

Thermal Scanner- is a device that can read an individual's temperature and assess if he

may or may not have a high body temperature.

Text Messages- is the act of composing and sending electronic messages, typically

consisting of alphabetic and numeric characters.

Smoke detectors- is a device that senses smoke, typically as an indicator of fire.

Wheelchair- is a chair with wheels, used when walking is difficult or impossible due to

illness, injury, problems related to old age, or disability.

9
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERRATURE

This chapter presents different related literature about the study. This chapter give

information about the implementation of safety guidelines and present the factors that

affecting physical infrastructure safety in school. The chapters entails a review of related

literature pertaining to school safety and safety standards implementation with respect to

physical infrastructure guidelines in Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology,

available options for enhancing safety of the physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure Safety in Schools

Unsanitary and unsafe learning environment results in injury and illness

(UNICEF, 2008). Responsibility for maintenance of school physical infrastructure and

nonstructural safety must be established by school authorities with mechanism for

financing and execution (Bastidas & Petal, 2012). According to UNICEF (2008), schools

must identify and eliminate causes of injury in schooAl buildings and on school grounds,

ensure that emergency response equipment is properly maintained and readily available,

establish emergency procedures and practice emergency response.

According to Ali & Fatima (2016) in Pakistan, best practices for safe school

construction including design, construction guidelines and appropriate construction

materials are emphasized. In their study on safety and security measures in secondary

schools in Islamabad, they established that 75% of the secondary schools had instituted

safety and security measures such as appropriate flooring and lighting on buildings.

83.3% had installed firefighting equipment and evacuation procedures in their buildings.

10
Factors affecting physical infrastructure safety in school

Inadequate Funds

According to Omolo & Simatwa (2010), inadequate funds were by far the most

significant factor influencing the implementation of safety policies in schools. They

attribute this to the fact that, implementation of safety policies involves extensive

modification of existing buildings, the purchase of expensive safety equipment and

fittings, in addition to capacity development at all levels. Telewa, Nderitu & Muthwii

(2015) argues that most schools had not fully implemented safety standards and

guidelines strategies due to inadequate funds. Findings by Muthiani (2016) and Mwangi

(2014) also agreed that inadequate funds affected adherence to the safety standards in

schools.

Inadequate Safety Equipment and Drills

Maritim, King’oo & Barmao (2015) opines that “most schools are not adequately

prepared for emergencies in terms of planning and equipment”. Gatua (2013)

categorically states that important and useful safety apparatus, including and not limited

to firefighting kits were lacking in most schools. She further noted that where safety

equipment such as fire extinguishers was available, they were inappropriately located

“behind doors or in dark corners”. Arguably, in most schools safety equipment was

either; defective, broken or worn out, rendering them in effective or unusable. While

observing that most institutions did not have emergency disaster management

mechanisms; Kisurulia, Katiambo & Lutomia (2013) established that “only a few

11
schools, (18%) had conducted drills in the previous one year”. Telewa, Nderitu &

Muthwii (2015) concurs that fire drills were rarely conducted in schools.

The Concept of Maintenance

School infrastructure and equipment are materials, resources, buildings, and

equipment that facilitate learning and teaching. Adeboyeje (2000) and Emertarom (2004)

refer to school infrastructure and equipment as enablers of the teaching and learning

which also increases the production of results. It is part of nature for equipment, buildings

and materials to lose their value or to depreciate in one way or another due to various

factors over time. These include aging, vandalism, extreme environmental conditions,

poor community support, mind set of pupils and staff, lack of security and poor handling.

Therefore to avoid disruption of programmes work of infrastructure and equipment

maintenance is inevitable of any given organisation especially schools and must be made

part and parcel of the school routine.

Nhlapo (2006) states that maintenance of school infrastructure and equipment

basically relates to the repair, replacement and general up keep of physical features such

as in the school buildings, grounds and safety systems. Kpee (2013), describes

maintenance as the continuous efforts of checking, improving, repairing, renewing,

repainting, remolding, controlling the use, modifying and ensuring effective and regular

use of school infrastructure and equipment in order to make them continuously relevant

and useful. Szuba and Young (2003) added that, maintenance is concerned with ensuring

safe conditions for facility users be they learners, educators, staff, parents or guests and

as for learners it is also concerned with creating a physical setting that is appropriate and

adequate for learning.

12
Level of Awareness on Existence of Safety standards manual in Schools

Schools and colleges play a crucial role in preparing children and young people to

be able to recognize and manage risk (ROSPA, 2012). Bastidas & Petal (2012) asserts

that school personnel should have the opportunity to develop response skills for disasters

and emergencies. Indeed ROSPA (2012) recommends teaching of safety in schools as an

all-inclusive individual and societal and wellness learning to make students become well-

adjusted citizens. Bastidas & Petal (2012) concurs that risk reduction should be integrated

holistically and taught as part of school curricula from pre-school through secondary

school.

In U.S the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (REMS) program

received grant funding from the Education Department (ED) to LEAs (Local Education

Agencies) “to create, strengthen and improve emergency response and crisis plans at the

district and individual school-buildings levels” (Brock, Kriger & Miro, 2017). OECD

(2003) points out that in 1995, the French government established a national agency for

safety in schools and higher education which prepares and sends out reports to the

government, public authorities and all other stakeholders interested in school safety. The

school safety publications are supported by training initiatives with emphasis on physical,

effective monitoring and control safety dimensions. In South Africa, township schools

had not entrenched safety awareness at school level. Emergency procedures were lacking,

contributing to implementation of most safety policies. Indeed, safety “situations in

schools were handled as they occurred” (Xaba, 2006).

13
Awareness on Safety Standards

To increase awareness levels on safety guidelines, Kemunto, Role & Balyage

(2015) recommended that QASOs should ensure school safety policies are disseminated

to all schools and implemented through proper coordination, monitoring and evaluation.

They further postulated that the MOE should introduce disaster preparedness theory and

practice into schools and training institutions curriculum at all levels. Ndetu & Kaluyu

(2016), Nyakundi, et al (2014) and Kisurulia, Katiambo & Lutomia (2013) also made

similar recommendations.

School Infrastructure in the Philippines

In February 2016, the DepEd institutionalized policy and guidelines for the

comprehensive Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) in Schools Program, or the WinS

Program, through DepEd Order Number 10 series of 2016. The DepEd recognized at the

time that the lack of access to safe and clean water as well as poor sanitation and hygiene

practices led to about 43.7 percent of pre-school children and 44.7 percent of school-age

children being infected with soil-transmitted helminths or parasitic worms. The

department order then set basic requirements and standards such as regular water supply,

regular monitoring of water quality, access to functional toilets with individual

handwashing facilities for boys and girls, proper septage and waste water disposal,

program on supervised group daily handwashing and toothbrushing, health education,

and deworming activities (DepEd 2016). The shortage of water and sanitation facilities is

also recognized in the assessment part of the PDP 2017-2022 document. The 2017 edition

14
of the PDP reported that 3,819 schools lacked water supply and sanitation facilities

(NEDA 2017). Although the assessment did not state what the baseline year is, it may be

deduced from the results matrices released by the NEDA that the PDP adopted 2014 as

base year for the assessment (NEDA 2021b). The PDP 2017-2022 also included in its

strategies for social infrastructure the provision of water and sanitation facilities for

schools. The 18 Updated PDP 2017-2022, released in February 2021, reiterated this

strategy and added the qualifier that water supply must be clean and potable.

Philippine policy reforms and infrastructure development

Public and private provision of infrastructure Infrastructure’s contribution to a

country’s economic growth and social development is widely understood. As the country

gets integrated through roads, bridges, ports, and airports, the buyers, sellers, and other

market agents become linked, resulting in mutually beneficial exchanges. Infrastructure

supports private production by facilitating the distribution of goods and services.

Similarly, it accelerates the industrialization drive of the government. As agricultural

productivity is enhanced, supplies of raw materials and intermediate products from

agriculture increase, raising the capacity utilization of plants and factories in the cities

and other urban areas. Firms in the center get connected to small enterprises in the

periphery. Moreover, people residing in the periphery are able to access facilities like

schools and health clinics in the center, enhancing social mobility and living standards.

Promoting private provision of infrastructure is well advised [Canlas 2006]. Public

provision Infrastructure facilities are illustrative of commodities with public-good

dimensions. They are part of society’s social overhead capital. Free markets are not able

to provide infrastructure facilities in quantities commensurate with society’s total needs.

15
No single agent has an incentive to build them without being fully compensated for the

effort. This is true, for instance, in the case of a highway or bridge, both critical in the

distribution of commodities. All administrations have been conscious of the importance

of broadening and modernizing the infrastructure base of the country. To achieve the goal

of inclusive growth, every president upon election commits to carry out a comprehensive

package of policy and institutional reforms aimed at enhancing the country’s

infrastructure facilities. The reforms have been anchored on two major approaches:

strengthen tax policy and tax administration to enable the government to increase

significantly its infrastructure spending; and strengthen private provision of

infrastructure. Actual outcomes over the years have been mixed. Some seventeen years

into the new millennium, much progress has been made. But at this juncture, the country

still suffers from a wide infrastructure gap. This has not gone unnoticed. For instance, in

2005, the World Bank in the Philippines published a report entitled Philippines: meeting

infrastructure challenges. The report was a comprehensive review and underscored the

failure of infrastructure development to keep pace with population growth and

urbanization.

Summary of Literature

Several studies illustrated that schools’ physical infrastructure affects the factors

in terms communication channel, funding of safety programmes and safety equipment.

This literature review's strength was a compilation of documentary evidence that

supported the implementation of safety guidelines in physical infrastructure in school.

Physical infrastructure safety needs, physical infrastructure safety determinants

(such as availability of funds, staff and students awareness, available safety equipment

16
and drills), and effective physical infrastructure safety practices and programmes (such as

awareness practices and programmes, structural safety of school buildings, safety

committees, QASOs monitoring and evaluation and existence of functional guidance and

counseling departments).

Throughout this research, encouraged students to actively engage and learn what

are the safety guidelines in physical infrastructure in school.

Justification of the Study

From the literature reviewed, several gaps can be identified. Studies by Muthiani

(2016) and Nyakundi (2012) do not concur with Gatua (2013) and Ng’ang’a (2013)

regarding the level of awareness in schools on the existence of the safety manuals, hence

an evidence gap. Furthermore, the status and safeness of the school physical

infrastructure for instructional utilization by the students and teachers can be attributed to

the fitness of the principal in successfully implementing these safety guidelines. Unsafe

and inadequate school physical facilities pose a serious threat to schools’ learning

environments and the attainment of the envisaged educational objectives. Based on the

prior studies reviewed, these identified research gaps therefore provided a basis and

justification for this research.

17
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter concentrates on the discussion of the research methods and

procedures adhered to by the researcher in order to answer systematically the specific

problems posed for investigation. Specifically, the research method, population and

samples, research instrument, data gathering procedure, and statistical treatment of the

data used for the accurate data analysis and interpretation were explained in this chapter.

Research Design

The descriptive correlational research design method was used in obtaining

information needed in this study. The descriptive correlational research design

investigates relationships between variables without the researcher controlling or

manipulating any of them. Descriptive research involves the identification of attributes of

a particular phenomenon based on an observational basis or the exploration of the

correlation between two or more phenomena. This method also used to investigate the

direction and magnitude of relationships among variables in a particular population.

Likewise, it is designed to study changes in one characteristic or phenomenon that

corresponds to another. The descriptive research design was used in this study because it

aims to identify how the implementation of safety guidelines in physical infrastructure

18
affects the students in Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology – San Isidro

Campus.

Research Locale

This study was conducted at Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology –

San Isidro Campus, located at Jose Abad Ave. Poblacion, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija during

academic year 2022 - 2023.

Samples and Sampling Technique

The respondents of the study were the Bachelor of Physical Education students in

all levels, at Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology – San Isidro Campus for

the academic year 2022-2023. Total enumeration was used in the study, where in each

element in the population has an equal and independent chance of selection in the sample.

The concept of independence means that choice of one element is not dependent upon the

choice of another element in the sampling or the selection or rejection of the element

does not affect the inclusion or exclusion of another.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study were the Bachelor of Physical Education students at

Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology – San Isidro Campus for the

academic year 2022-2023. All of the Bachelor of Physical Education students in Nueva

Ecija University of Science and Technology were chosen since they are all belong and

affected by the school safety guidelines.

19
Research Instruments

The researchers used a three-part questionnaire (Appendix A). The first part of the

instrument consists of items that will gather the demographic profile of respondents such

as their name, age, sex, year level, and course. The second part of the questionnaire

inquires about the implementation of safety guidelines in physical infrastructure safety in

school. A checklist for communication channel, funding of programs and the available

safety equipments. The third part of the questionnaire the researchers also ask their

respondents based on what are their observation on safety measures in school and what

are the ways for enhancing it (Kioko, 2015).

Validity of the Instrument

To test the validity of the research instruments, reliability test was used. The

questionnaire was shown to experts to go over the corrections, suggestions, and

appropriateness to make to improve the instruments were use.

Procedure of the Study

After the instrument’s validation, the researchers made a letter of permission to

conduct the study to the Director and Professors of the perspective university engaged in

the study, assuring them of the confidentiality of their identity and responses. The

researchers intended to distribute the survey questionnaires to the respondents through

Survey Forms.

Data Gathering Procedure

After the instrument's validation, researchers made a letter of permission to

conduct the study to the Campus Director of Nueva Ecija University of Science and

20
Technology, San Isidro Campus, After the approval (Appendix B), the researcher

administered the survey using the survey questionnaire.

Scale Weighted Means/ Equivalent Corresponding Remarks

5 4.21 – 5.00 Strongly Agree

4 3.41 – 4.20 Agree

3 2.61 – 3.40 Slightly Agree

2 1.81 – 2.60 Disagree

1 1.00 – 1.80 Strongly Disagree

Scale Weighted Means/ Equivalent Corresponding Remarks

5 4.21 – 5.00 Very Excellent Condition

4 3.41 – 4.20 Excellent Condition

3 2.61 – 3.40 Fair Condition

2 1.81 – 2.60 Poor Condition

1 1.00 – 1.80 Not Available

Scale Weighted Means/ Equivalent Corresponding Remarks

5 4.21 – 5.00 Always

4 3.41 – 4.20 Often

3 2.61 – 3.40 Sometimes

2 1.81 – 2.60 Rarely

1 1.00 – 1.80 Never

21
Statistical Analysis of Data

The following statistical tools were used to treat the gathered data in order to

answer

the questions identified in the statement of the problem:

1. Frequency count used to describe the demographic profile variables of the

respondents.

2. Weighted Mean used to compute for the weight of the responses in the

questionnaire assigned by the respondents.

3. Percentage - was used to determine the proportion of the respondents who

answer in a certain way. This tool is used to identify the number and percentage

who respond in a certain way.

4. Pearson Correlation – were used to determine the relationship between the

profile of the respondents and their awareness in safety guidelines in physical

infrastructure.

22
 CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter present the analysis and interpretation of data gathered from the

foregoing study which aim to determine the Implementation of Safety Guidelines in

Physical Infrastructure as Perceived by the Bachelor of Physical Education Students. The

data found in this chapter were arranged according to problems treated in this study.

1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the Respondents

23
 To address the first statement of the problem, the socio-demographic

characteristics of the respondents was discussed using the frequency and percentage. It is

necessary to identify and analyze the implementation of safety guidelines in physical

infrastructure as perceived by the bachelor of physical education students.

The profile of 80 respondents was described in terms of age, sex, and year.

1.1 Age

Table 1 shows that out of eighty respondents, high frequency and low frequency

10 or 12.5% were 18 years old, 12 or 15% were 19 years old, 21 or 26.25% were 20 years

old, 16 or 20% were 21 years old, 16 or 20% were 22 years old, 4 or 5% were 23 years

old and 1 or 1.25% were 32 years old.

Table 1. Frequency Distribution of the Respondents According to Age

Age Frequency Percentage
18 10 12.5%
19 12 15%
20 21 26.25%
21 16 20%
22 16 20%
23 4 5%
32 1 1.25%
Total 80 100 %

1.2 Sex

24
 Table 2 shows that out of eighty respondents, 27 or 33.75% were male and 53 or

66.25% were female. This shows that there were more female respondents than the male

respondents.

Table 2. Frequency Distribution of the Respondents According to Sex

Sex Frequency Percentage
Male 27 33.75%
Female 53 66.25%
Total 80 100 %

1.3 Year

Table 3 shows the year level of the respondents, 33.75% of the respondents are 1 st

year students with a total of 27, and the 17.5% of the respondents are 2 nd year students

with a total of 14, and the 30% of the respondents are 3 rd year students with a total of 24,

and the 11.25% of the respondents are 4th year students section 4-A total of 9, while the

7.5% of the respondents are 4-B students with a total of 6. The data implied that most of

the respondents are 1st year Bachelor of Physical Education students.

Table 3. Frequency Distribution of the Respondents According to Year.

Year Frequency Percentage
1st Year 27 33.75%
2nd Year 14 17.5%
3rd Year 24 30%
4th Year (4-A) 9 11.25%
4th Year (4-B) 6 7.5%
Total 80 100%

2. Factors affecting physical infrastructure safety in terms of; Communication

channel, Funding of safety programmes, and Safety equipment.

25
 2.1 Communication Channel

To address the 2nd statement of the problems, which is student outcomes of the

respondents on physical education on how may the factors affecting physical

infrastructure safety in be described in terms of; Communication channel, Funding of

safety programmes, and Safety equipment. The questionnaire was adapted from

Principals’ Effectiveness in the Implementation of Safety Guidelines on Physical

Infrastructure in Public Secondary Schools in Makueni County Kenya by Nzangi Evans

Kioko, July, (2020) was utilized to find the student outcomes.

Table 4 shows the mean on factors affecting physical infrastructure safety in be

described in terms of; Communication channel, item statement that obtained the highest

mean is 4.625 which were described as “Always” was item number 8 with the statement

“Social Media” The Item statement that obtained the lowest mean of 3.18 which

described as “Sometimes” was statement number 10 with the statement “Pamphlets” The

average weighted mean obtained was 3.87 which were described as “Often”. This means

that the respondents was often seen those Communication Channel in the campus.

Overall, the bachelor of physical education students of Nueva Ecija University of Science

and Technology – San Isidro Campus on the factors affecting physical infrastructure

safety in be described in terms of communication channel have an average 3.87 and

verbally interpreted as “Often”. Similar to the study of Mari, (2010) recommended that

since a school is an open system that is in constant interaction with the external

environment and the world is undergoing tremendous changes as a result of advances in

science and technology, it should adopt to new technology. This concurs with the

Commonwealth Secretariat (1991) which stipulates that the phase of information

26
technology is used to encompass a range of new technologies and their application,

including all aspects of the use of computers, microelectronics devices, and satellite and

communication technology.

Table 4. Communication Channel

Verbal
Item Statements Mean/S.D.
Interpretation
1. News Letter 3.36 ± 1.23 Often
2. Safety Posters 4.06 ± 0.91 Often
3. Safety Manuals 4.05 ± 0.93 Often
4. Bulletin Boards 4.46 ± 0.77 Always
5. Assemblies/Seminars 3.94 ± 0.97 Often
6. Political and Non-Political Organization 3.58 ± 1.06 Often
7. Resource Person 3.90 ± 0.94 Often
8. Social Media 4.63 ± 0.70 Always
9. Text Messages 3.55 ± 1.23 Often
10. Pamphlets 3.18 ± 1.14 Sometimes
Average Weighted Mean 3.87 ± 0.99 Often
Legend: S.D = Standard Deviation

2.2 Funding of Safety Programmes

Table 5 shows the mean on factors affecting physical infrastructure safety in be

described in terms of; Funding Safety Programs, item statement that obtained the highest

mean is 4.05 which were described as “Agree” was item number 2 with the statement

“The school raise budget for safety equipment in school.” Item statement that obtained

the lowest mean of 3.975 which described as “Agree” was statement number 1 with the

statement “The school allocates funds in its annual budget towards physical infrastructure

safety.” The average weighted mean obtained was 4.02 which were described as “Agree”.

This means that all of the respondents was agree and aware in terms of Funding of Safety

Programmes in the campus.

Overall, the bachelor of physical education students of Nueva Ecija University of

Science and Technology – San Isidro Campus on the factors affecting physical

27
infrastructure safety in be described in terms of funding of safety programmes have an

average 4.02 and verbally interpreted as “Agree”. In contrast to the study of Gatua,

(2013) indicated that there was no specific budget for safety guidelines implementation in

schools. This affected safety guidelines implementation which needed a lot of financial

commitment.

Table 5. Funding of Safety Programmes

Item Statements Mean/S.D. Verbal Interpretation
1. The school allocates funds in its annual budget 3.98 ± 0.77 Agree
towards physical infrastructure safety.
2. The school raise budget for safety equipment 4.05 ± 0.79 Agree
in school.
3. Physical infrastructure safety is adequately 4.03 ± 0.67 Agree
funded in your school.
4. The school grants the funds according to their 4.03 ± 0.74 Agree
safety and security needs.
5. The level of funding affects the physical 4.01 ± 0.83 Agree
infrastructure safety features in schools.
Average Weighted Mean 4.02 ± 0.76 Agree
Legend: S.D = Standard Deviation

2.3 Safety Equipment

Table 6 shows the mean on factors affecting physical infrastructure safety in be

described in terms of; Safety Equipment, item statement that obtained the highest mean is

4.475 which were described as “Always” was item number 1 with the statement “Fire

extinguishers” Item statement that obtained the lowest mean of 2.5875 which described

as “Rarely” was statement number 24 with the statement “Rubber Boat” The average

weighted mean obtained was 3.92 which were described as “Often”. This means that the

respondents often seen those Safety Equipment in school.

Overall, the bachelor of physical education students of Nueva Ecija University of

Science and Technology – San Isidro Campus on the factors affecting physical

28
infrastructure safety in be described in terms of safety equipment have an average 3.92

and verbally interpreted as “Often”. In contrast to the study of Kioko, (2020) that most of

the schools did not have fire extinguishers while only a few of them had sand buckets

which were strategically placed in accessible locations. These findings resonate with the

assertion by Maritim, King’oo & Barmao (2015) that most schools lacked the requisite

safety kits.

Table 6. Safety Equipment in the Campus

Item Statements Mean/S.D. Verbal Interpretation

1. Fire extinguishers. 4.48 ± 0.82 Always
2. Smoke detectors. 2.94 ± 1.36 Rarely
3. Pressure water hose. 3.39 ± 1.28 Often
4. First aid kits. 4.73 ± 0.69 Always
5. Lab rooms. 4.29 ± 1.00 Always
6. Lab glasses. 3.85 ± 1.09 Often
7. Safety gloves. 4.05 ± 1.02 Often

29
 8. Stretchers. 4.09 ± 1.06 Often
9. Wheel chair. 4.04 ± 1.21 Often
10. Security cameras. 4.26 ± 1.01 Always
11. Safety lock doors. 4.28 ± 0.99 Always
12. Safety signages. 4.34 ± 0.88 Always
13. Safety precautions. 4.36 ± 0.81 Always
14. Sand Buckets. 3.19 ± 1.18 Sometimes
15. Fire Sprinkle Water System. 3.16 ± 1.36 Sometimes
16. Fire Alarm. 4.34 ± 0.96 Always
17. Emergency Hotline Poster. 4.09 ± 1.19 Often
18. Thermal Scanner. 4.10 ± 1.20 Often
19. Alcohol Dispenser. 4.70 ± 0.73 Always
20. Exhaust Fan. 3.90 ± 1.14 Often
21. Automatic Breaker Switch. 4.04 ± 1.07 Often
22. Metal Detector. 3.45 ± 1.39 Often
23. Generator 3.43 ± 1.32 Often
24. Rubber Boat. 2.59 ± 1.39 Rarely
25. Trash Bin 3.80 ± 0.90 Often
Average Weighted Mean 3.92 ± 1.08 Often
Legend: S.D = Standard Deviation

3. What are the observations of the respondents in safety measures in the campus

To address the 3rd statement of the problems, which is student outcomes of the

respondents on physical education based on what are the observations of the respondents

in safety measures in the campus. The questionnaire was adapted from Principals’

Effectiveness in the Implementation of Safety Guidelines on Physical Infrastructure in

Public Secondary Schools in Makueni County Kenya by Nzangi Evans Kioko, July,

(2020) was utilized to find the student outcomes.

Table 7 shows the mean on what are the observations of the respondents in safety

measures in the campus? Item statement that obtained the highest mean is 4.4875 which

were described as “Very Excellent Condition” was item number 8 with the statement

“There are security guards to maintain the safety of the campus.” Item statement that

30
obtained the lowest mean of 3.8 which described as “Excellent Condition” was statement

number 3 with the statement “Laboratory equipment is properly used.” The average

weighted mean obtained was 4.01 which were described as “Excellent Condition”. This

means that the respondents was satisfied in the excellent condition of safety measures in

the campus.

Overall, the bachelor of physical education students of Nueva Ecija University of

Science and Technology – San Isidro Campus on the statement what are the observations

of the respondents in safety measures in the campus have an average 4.01 and verbally

interpreted as “Excellent Condition”. In contrast to the study of Magdla, (2006) which

found out that schools were especially vulnerable to unsafe situations and threats of

violence due to among other things, poor resources and infrastructure, their location,

especially in and around informal settlement, the type of their building and environmental

design.

Table 7. Safety Measures in the Campus.

Item Statements Mean/S.D. Verbal Interpretation
1. Fire extinguishers are in strategic places. 4.24 ± 0.71 Excellent Condition
2. Classrooms and Laboratory windows are with 4.00 ± 0.97 Excellent Condition
grills.
3. Laboratory equipment is properly used. 3.08 ± 0.95 Excellent Condition
4. Emergency exits are available in the school. 4.10 ± 0.90 Excellent Condition
5. There is enough space in the classroom. 3.99 ± 0.80 Excellent Condition
6. There are enough comfort rooms in the campus. 3.71± 0.99 Excellent Condition
7. Laboratory safety rules are posted in the 4.05 ± 0.77 Excellent Condition
laboratories.

31
8. There are security guards to maintain the safety 4.49 ± 0.65 Very Excellent Condition
of the campus.
9. There is enough water supply in the campus. 4.05 ± 1.01 Excellent Condition
10.Safety signage/notices post in designated areas. 4.13 ± 0.86 Excellent Condition
11.There is enough ventilation in the campus. 3.90 ± 0.96 Excellent Condition
12.There is enough lighting in the campus. 4.15 ± 0.85 Excellent Condition
13.There is fence around the campus. 4.14 ± 0.83 Excellent Condition
14.There are safety checks at the campus gate. 4.11 ± 0.92 Excellent Condition
15.Doorways opening outwards. 3.96 ± 1.05 Excellent Condition
Average Weighted Mean 4.01 ± 0.88 Excellent Condition
Legend: S.D = Standard Deviation

4. Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and

their observation about safety measures in the campus?

Table 8 shows the significant relationship between the profile of the respondents

and their observation about safety measures in the campus, The sex, age, and year level

of the respondents have no significant realtionship the P value obtained was higher than

0.5. In contrast to the study of Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA,

2012). Schools and colleges play a crucial role in preparing children and young people to

be able to recognize and manage risk. Bastidas & Petal (2012) asserts that school

personnel should have the opportunity to develop response skills for disasters and

emergencies. Indeed ROSPA (2012) recommends teaching of safety in schools as an all-

inclusive individual and societal and wellness learning to make students become well-

adjusted citizens.

Table 8. Relationship between the profile of the respondents and their observation
about safety measures in the campus.
Correlation
Student Outcomes P value Interpretation
Coefficient
Sex 0.1563 0.5956 Not Significant Relationship
Age 0.06024 0.1662 Significant Relationship
Year Level 0.03252 0.7746 Not Significant Relationship

32
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUCIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study aimed to determine the Implementation of Safety Guidelines in

Physical Infrastructure as Perceived by the Bachelor of Physical Education Students of

Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology – San Isidro Campus. It also aimed to

determined the relationship between demographic variables on respondent’s outcome in

33
Implementation of safety guideline in physical infrastructure, as perceived by the

bachelor of physical education students and the factors’ affecting the physical

infrastructure safety in school.

Summary of Findings

This study aimed to identify what are safety guidelines in physical infrastructure

as perceived by the bachelor of Bachelor of Physical Education from Nueva Ecija

University of Science and Technology – San Isidro Campus. It also aimed to determine

the relationship between demographic variables on respondent’s outcome as they

perceived the safety guideline in physical infrastructure in school.

The findings of the study are summarized as follows:

1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the Respondents

1.1 Age

From 80 respondents, the bracket of students with the age of 20 years old

had the highest frequency of 21, while the bracket of students with the age of 32

had a lowest frequency of 1.

1.2 Sex

From the total of 80 respondents, there were 53 female and 27 were male

physical education students.

1.3 Year

34
 From 80 respondents, of all physical education students the bracket of first

year had the highest frequency of 27, while the bracket of the fourth year had a

lowest frequency of 6.

2. Student’s outcomes of the respondents on factors affecting physical

infrastructure safety in school.

2.1 Communication Channel

The respondents had a positive view as they all agree in terms of

communication channel in their school and have an average weighted mean of

3.87.

2.2 Funding of safety Programmes

The respondents had a positive view as they all agree in terms of funding of

safety programmes in their school and have an average weighted mean of 4.02.

2.3 Safety Equipment

The respondents had a positive view as they always see safety equipment in

their school and have an average weighted mean of 3.92.

3. Student’s outcomes of the respondents on their observations about safety

measures in the campus.

The respondents had a positive view as they have excellent condition as they

observe the safety measures in their school and have an average weighted mean of

4.01

4. Relationship between the profile of the respondents and their observation about

safety measures in the campus?

35
 There is no significant relationship between the respondents' demographic

profile and their outcomes in terms of their observation about safety measures in

the campus.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the study the following Conclusion are drawn.

1. Majority of the respondents were female and most of the respondents answer the

survey questionnaire were first year physical education students. And most of

them are at the age of 20 years old.

2. The researchers found out the respondent’s agreement and satisfaction towards

communication channel, funding of safety programmes, and safety equipment in

campus. In terms of communication channel, the researchers found out that the

respondent’s have an average of 3.87 and they interpreted as often further stated

that, they are often satisfied in terms of communication channel in the campus.

3. While in term of funding of safety programmes, the researchers found out that

the respondent’s have an average of 4.02 and they interpreted as “agree” further

stated that, they are satisfied and agree about the fundings of safety programmes

that included on the item statement. There was no specific budget for safety

guidelines implementation in schools but they are satisfied on the school funding

systems based on the respondent’s needs.

4. The researchers found out that the respondent’s agreed in terms of safety

equipment’s that have an average of 3.92 and verbally interpreted as “Often”.

36
 Based on the answer of respondents that often of the most of the safety equipment

included on the item statement was often available in the campus.

5. The researchers found out that the respondents agreed based on the campus

condition in terms of safety measures. That has an average of 4.01, and

interpreted as excellent condition. Which found out that schools is responsible and

providing the safety measures for the safety of their students as the respondents

observation. It is good that the school safety measures is in excellent condition,

because the school is liable for having unsafe situation and threats of violence

among students.

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusion of this study, the following are recommended:

1. For future researcher, based on the result it is important for every bachelor of physical

education student’s to be aware and prepared on every situation and in any age, sex, and

year level all of them are going to face it when they are in school. Thus, it recommended

to conduct an assessment on the implementation of safety guidelines on physical

infrastructure to all levels and to all of the students in San Isidro campus to determine if

all the students has knowledge about safety guidelines in the campus.

2. For future researcher, based on the result the students are aware and have knowledge

about the communication channels that the campus is using specially the social media.

Thus, it is recommended and suggested that the future researchers might elaborate the

37
importance of it and conduct a study about the Effects of Communication Channel in

Safety Guidelines in the Campus.

3. In this study, Implementation of Safety Guidelines in Physical Infrastructure as

perceived by the Bachelor of Physical Education students, will serve as a guide and

instruction for the awareness of the future researchers, as they will conduct a study about

safety guidelines.

4. For the future researchers, aside from knowing the factors that may affect the safety

guidelines in the campus it is recommend to do a qualitative study that may determine the

opinion of the students base in their observation about the safety guidelines that the

campus implemented.

REFERENCES

38
Ali, S., & Fatima, F. (2016). Comparative Analysis of safety and security measures in
public and private schools at secondary level. J Socialomics 5:169, doi
10.40172/2167-0358. Retrieved from:
https://www.walshmedicalmedia.com/open-access/comparative-analysis-of-
safety-and-security-measures-in-public-and-private-schools-at-secondary-level-
2471-8726-1000169.pdf

Adeboyeje, R.A. (2000), Management of School Physical Facilities, Ibadan: Foundation

Publications. Retrieved from: http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jrme/papers/Vol-
3%20Issue-1/E0312832.pdf

Armstrong, M. (2000). Handbook of human resource management in practice.

Retrieved from: https://euczelnia.uek.krakow.pl/pluginfile.php/604792/content.

Bastidas, P., & Petal, M. (2012). Assessing school safety from disasters. A global
baseline report. Geneva: UNISDR Retrieve from:
https://www.unisdr.org/files/35274_2012schoolsafetyglobalbaseline.pdf

Brock, M., Kriger, N., Miro, R. (2017). School Safety Policies and Programs
Administered by the U.S. Federal Government: 1990-2016.Washington, D.C:
Federal Research division library of Congress. Retrieved from:
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251517.pdf

Canlas, D.B., 2018. Philippine policy reforms and infrastructure development: a

historical account. Philippine Review of Economics, 54(2), pp.61-87. Retrieved
from: https://econ.upd.edu.ph/pre/index.php/pre/article/view/955

Chukwu, E.C. (2008). School safety and security. A management challenge to principals
in the Vryheid District. Published Master of Philosophy Thesis. University of
Johannesburg. Retrieved from:
https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/esploro/outputs/9913719607691?
institution=27UOJ_INST&skipUsageReporting=true&recordUsage=false

Ermita, P. and Florencondia, N., Managing Safety in Higher Education Institutions: A

Case in the Philippines. Retrieved form:
https://www.academia.edu/download/84380869/B13460982S1119.pdf

Gatua, J.W. (2013). Assessment of the implementation of ministry of education safety

guidelines on physical infrastructure in public secondary schools in Nairobi West
region, Kenya. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Catholic university of Eastern
Africa, Nairobi. Retrieved form: http://ir.cuea.edu/jspui/handle/1/81

Kemunto, N.J., Role, E., & Balyage, Y. (2015). Safety policy implementation frame work
for secondary schools in Kenya. Baraton Interdisciplinary Research Journal, vol5

39
 (special issue), pp 27-40. Retrieved form:
http://kerd.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/291

Kioko, N.E., 2020. Principals’ Effectiveness in the implementation of safety guidelines

on physical infrastructure in public secondary schools in makueni county, kenya
(Doctoral dissertation, Kenyatta University.) Retrieved form: https://ir-
library.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/22870/Principals
%E2%80%99%20Effectiveness%20in%20the%20Implementation....pdf?
sequence=1

Kisurulia, S., Katiambo, D., Lutomia, G.A. (2013). An investigation into state of disaster
and safety preparedness in schools in Kenya. International Journal of Science and
Research Retrieved form: (IJSR) vol.4 issue 9 (www.ijsr.net).
https://www.academia.edu/download/78705748/SUB158087.pdf

Kpee, G. G. (2013). The school plant planning. In J. D. Asodike, J. M., Ebong, S.

O.,Oluwuo, & N. M. Abraham. Contemporary administrative teaching issues in
Nigerian schools (pp. 306-314). Owerri: Alphabet Nigeria Publishers. Retrieved
form: https://journals.journalsplace.org/index.php/JEDA/article/view/244

Magdla,X. (2006). An Investigation into the basic Safety & Security Status of school’s
physical environments. South African Journal of Education. Retrieved form:
https://journals.co.za/doi/abs/10.10520/EJC32099

Maritim, J.C., King’oo, R.M., & Barmao, C. (2015). Physical infrastructural safeness in
public boarding secondary schools in Kenya. International Journal of Education
and research. Vol3, No7. Retrieved from: www.ijern.com
https://www.academia.edu/download/38540889/17_2.pdf

Mari, E.S. (2010). The role of combating violence in schools in East London Region.
University of Fort Hare East London. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bellita-Chitsamatanga/publicatio/338888938
School_Related_Gender_Based_Violence_as_a_Violation_of_Children's_Rights_
to_Education_in_South_Africa_Manifestations_Consequences_and_Possible_Sol
utions/links/5e4cde5e299bf1cdb93580bb/School-Related-Gender-BasedViolence-
as-a-Violation-of-Childrens-Rights-to-Education- in -South- Africa-
Manifestations- Consequences-and-Possible Solutions.pdf

Melden, P. (2012). Schools face more challenges than even before ABC News.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/education/features/43033856. Retrieved from:
https://irlibrary.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/22870/Principals
%E2%80%99%20Effectiveness%20in%20the%20Implementation....pdf?
sequence=1

40
Muthiani, R.M. (2016). Factors influencing schools compliance to safety standards
guidelines in public secondary schools in Kitui central sub county, Kitui County.
Unpublished Masters Research Project Report. South Eastern Kenya University,
Kitui. Retrieved from: http://repository.seku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/1943

Mwangi, J.W. (2014). Safety measures in public secondary schools in Kahuro district,
Murang’a County, Kenya and their effects on schools safety. Unpublished
Masters Research Project. Kenyatta University, Nairobi. Retrieved from:
https://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/11331

Navarro, A.M., 2022. School Infrastructure in the Philippines: Where Are We Now and
Where Should We Be Heading? (No. DP 2022-10). Philippine Institute for
Development Studies. Retrieved from:
https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps2210.pdf

National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). 2017. Philippine Development

Plan 2017-2022. Pasig City: NEDA. Retrieved from:
https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/241043

Ndetu, D.K., & Kaluyu, B. (2016). Factors influencing fire disaster management
preparedness: A case of primary schools in Makueni County Kenya. European
Journal of Education studies. Retrieved from www.oapub.org/edu. Retrieved
from: http://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejes/article/view/266

Nhlapo, V.A. (2006), Managing school safety in the primary school. Vanderbijlpark:
North West University. Unpublished dissertation. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/VelaphiNhlapo/publication/324057800_MA
NAGING_SCHOOL_SAFETY_IN_THE_PRIMARY_SCHOOL/links/
5abb66d345851563660b22ba/MANAGING-SCHOOL-SAFETY-IN-THE-
PRIMARY-SCHOOL.pdf

Nyakundi, O.Z., Ngwacho, G.A., Mong’are, E., Onguti, R., & Mikuro, R. (2014).
Implementation of safety standards and guidelines in public secondary schools in
Marani District, Kisi County, Kenya. Journal of Education and practice vol5, No
13. Retrieved from www.iiste.org. Retrieved from:
https://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/5490/Nyakundi,
+Zablon+Ogonyo.pdf?sequence=3

OECD (2003). “School Safety in France” PEB Exchange Programme on Educational

Building, 2003/01 OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from: http:/dx.doi
1787/71635/035433https://irlibrary.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/22870/
Principals%E2%80%99%20Effectiveness%20in%20the
%20Implementation....pdf?sequence=1

41
Omolo, D.O., & Simatwa, E.M.W. (2010). An assessment of the implementation of
safety policies in public secondary schools in Kisumu East and West Districts,
Kenya. Educational Research. (ISSN: 214-5161) VOL (II) PP. 637649. Retrieved
from: http://www.interesjournals.org.ER.

Republic of Kenya (2008). The Safety Standards Manual for Schools in Kenya.1st ed.
Nairobi: Church World Service. Retrieved from:
http://ephijer.com/index.php/er/article/view/15

ROSPA (2012). Managing safety in schools and colleges. Birmingham: ROSPA House.
Retrieved from. www.rospa.com/school and college safety. Royal Society for the
Prevention of Accidents. Retrieved from:
https://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/22870/Principals
%E2%80%99%20Effectiveness%20in%20the%20Implementation....pdf?
sequence=1

Rugut, J.E. (2003). Teachers, Inspector and Education Officers perception of the
expected roles of the peer supervisors in Kenyan Primary schools. A case study of
Nandi District. Unpublished Master of Philosophy Thesis, Moi University.
Retrieved
from:https://irlibrary.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/5490/Nyakundi,
+Zablon+Ogonyo.pdf?sequence=3

Rwanda Ministry of Education. (2009). Child Friendly Schools infrastructure Standards

and Guidelines. Primary and Tronc Community Schools. Kigali: MINEDU
Retrieved from:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/17595901111108353/full/
html

Schneider, S. (2002). School violence in Children and Adolescents: A meta-analysis of

effectiveness. Journal of school violence, 1:5-34 Retrieved from:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J202v01n02_02

Szuba, T. & Young, R. (2003), Planning guide for maintaining school facilities.
Washington D.C: National Forum on Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=aYCA3CrOwd4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=Szuba,+T.+
%26+Young,+R.+(2003),+Planning+guide+for+maintaining+school+facilities.
+Washington+D.C:
+National+Forum+on+Education+Statistics&ots=YHbTSSLabV&sig=JRZ3mHJ
RWkJWX65Tusdftid61W4

UNICEF (2008). Child friendly schools manual. New York: United Nations children’s
fund. Retrieved from: https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=eSXDREdKliMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP7&dq=UNICEF+(2008).
+Child+friendly+schools+manual.+New+York:+United+Nations+children

42
 %E2%80%99s+fund.
+&ots=VaWE93NE97&sig=kLJmufdxdCfbsitQilP_bqE0POg

Telewa, N.C., Nderitu, M.K. & Muthwii, S.M. (2015). A survey of disaster preparedness
and safety standards in secondary school in Kenya. IOSR Journal of humanities
and social science. Vol20, issue 4. PP 73-80. Retrieved from:
http://repository.seku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/1321

Xaba, M. (2006). An Investigation into the basic safety and security status of the schools’
physical environments. South African Journal of Education. Vol 24(4)565-580
Retrieved from: https://journals.co.za/doi/abs/10.10520/EJC32099

43
APPENDICES

44
 APPENDIX A

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Respondents,
Greetings!
The undersigned is presently working on the study entitled “Implementation of Safety
Guidelines in Physical Infrastructure as Perceived by the Bachelor of Physical Education
Students of Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology- San Isidro Campus.
In this regard you have been chosen as one of the respondents to answer the
questionnaire. Please answer all the items in this questionnaire as they are very much needed in
this study. Your participation in the study by way of answering the questionnaire is very vital.
Without it, the study will not be as complete as it should be. Rest assured that all information
you’ll provide will be held strictly confidential.

Thank you very much.

Very truly yours,

Researchers
QUESTIONNAIRE
Direction: Read each question carefully and kindly put a checkmark (/) on the space
provided that corresponds to your answer.
I. Profile of the Respondents
1.1 age; ____ 1.3 year: ____
1.2 sex; Female Male
II. Factors affecting physical infrastructure safety in school.
A. Communication channel
Directions: Please identify the available communication channel in your school. Check
the items (√) as appropriate. Rate the different aspects based on a scale of 1 to 5 wherein:
5 – Always
4 – Often
3 – Sometimes
2 – Rarely
1– Never

45
 Communication channel 5 4 3 2 1
1. News letters
2. Safety Posters
3. Safety Manuals
4. Bulletin Boards
5. Assemblies/Seminars
6. Political and Non-Political Organization
7. Resource Persons
8. Social Media
9. Text Messages
10. Pamphlets

B. Funding of safety programmes

Directions: Below are statements about funding of safety programmes in your school.
Please indicate your opinion by checking where applicable. Rate the different aspects
based on a scale of 1 to 5 wherein:
5 - Strongly Agree
4 - Agree
3 - Slightly Agree
2 - Disagree
1- Strongly Disagree

Items Statements 5 4 3 2 1
1. The school allocates funds in its annual budget towards physical
infrastructure safety.
2. The school raise budget for safety equipment in school.
3. Physical infrastructure safety is adequately funded in your school.
4. The school grants the funds according to their safety and security
needs
5. The level of funding affects the physical infrastructure safety features
in schools.

Directions: Please identify the available safety equipment in your school. Check the
items (√) as appropriate. Rate the different aspects based on a scale of 1 to 5 wherein:

5- Always
4- Often
3 – Sometimes

46
 2 – Rarely
1– Never

Items Statements 5 4 3 2 1
1. Fire extinguishers.
2. Smoke detectors.
3. Pressure water hose.
4. First aid kits.
5. Lab rooms.
6. Lab glasses.
7. Safety gloves.
8. Stretchers.
9. Wheel chair.
10. Security cameras.
11. Safety lock doors.
12. Safety signages.
13. Safety precautions.
14. Sand Buckets.
15. Fire Sprinkle Water System.
16. Fire Alarm.
17. Emergency Hotline Poster.
18. Thermal Scanner.
19. Alcohol Dispenser.
20. Exhaust Fan.
21. Automatic Breaker Switch.
22. Metal Detector.
23. Generator.
24. Rubber Boat.
25. Trash Bin

III. Safety measures in your campus.

Directions: Please (/) check the most appropriate response when answering the
questions. Evaluate what are the safety measures in your campus. Rate the different
aspects based on a scale of 1 to 5 wherein:
5- Very Excellent Condition
4- Excellent Condition
3- Fairly Condition
2- Poor Condition
1-Not Available
Items Statements 5 4 3 2 1

1. Fire extinguishers are in strategic places.

2. Classrooms and Laboratory windows are with grills.

47
3. Voltage signs in electrical outlets are clearly indicated.
4. Emergency exits are available in the school.
5. There is enough space in the classroom.
6. There are enough comfort rooms in the campus.
7. Laboratory safety rules are posted in the laboratories.
8. There are security guards to maintain the safety of the
campus.
9. There is enough water supply in the campus.
10. Safety signage/notices post in designated areas.
11. There is enough ventilation in the campus.
12. There is enough lighting in the campus.
13. There is fence around the campus.
14. There are safety checks at the campus gate.
15. Garbage are separated and disposed of in designated trashcans
and places.

APPENDIX B

Letter to Campus Director

48
CURRICULUM VITAE

49
NAME: Anjeline A. Custodio
BIRTHDAY: December 18, 2002
AGE: 20
GENDER: Female
BIRTHPLACE: Malapit San Isidro, Nueva Ecija
ADDRESS: 1352 Medina st. Malapit, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija
CIVIL STATUS: Single
RELIGION: Roman Catholic
HEIGHT: 5’4
WEIGHT: 65
PARENTS:
FATHER: Rodrigo Custodio
OCCUPATION: Farmer
MOTHER: Adalia Custodio
OCCUPATION: House wife
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GRADUATED: Malapit West Elementary School
AWARDS: none
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATED: Divina Pastora College
AWARDS: none
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATED: Kinect Academy
AWARDS: none
TERTIARY: Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology San Isidro Campus
EMAIL ADDRESS: anjelinecustodio9@gmail.com

50
 CURRICULUM VITAE

NAME: Julie D.L Dela Cruz

BIRTHDAY: October 06, 2001
AGE: 21
GENDER: Female
BIRTHPLACE: Mahipon Gapan City, Nueva Ecija
ADDRESS: Zone 8, Mahipon Gapan City, Nueva Ecija
CIVIL STATUS: Single
RELIGION: Born Again Christian
HEIGHT: 5’3
WEIGHT: 65kg
PARENTS:
FATHER: Tirso Dela Cruz
OCCUPATION: Farmer
MOTHER: Teresita D.L Dela Cruz
OCCUPATION: House wife
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GRADUATED: Bungo Elementary School
AWARDS: none
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATED: Herminio G. Nicolas High School
AWARDS: none
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATED: Herminio G. Nicolas High School
AWARDS: none
TERTIARY: Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology San Isidro Campus
EMAIL ADDRESS: deleonjulie738@gmail.com

CURRICULUM VITAE

51
NAME: Kimberly A. Dela Cruz
BIRTHDAY: March 15, 2002
AGE: 20
GENDER: Female
BIRTHPLACE: San Jose General Hospital
ADDRESS: Niyugan, Jaen, Nueva Ecija
CIVIL STATUS: Single
RELIGION: Roman Catholic
HEIGHT: 4'11
WEIGHT: 45kg
PARENTS:
FATHER: Randy DC. Dela Cruz
OCCUPATION: Automotive Painter
MOTHER: Emilyn A. Dela Cruz
OCCUPATION: House Wife
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GRADUATED FROM: Niyugan Elementary School
AWARDS: none
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATED FROM: San Mariano National High
School
AWARDS: none
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATED FROM: Kinect Academy Inc.
AWARDS: none
TERTIARY: Nueva Ecija University Of Science And Technology
EMAIL ADDRESS: kd928723@gmail.com

CURRICULUM VITAE

NAME: Tricia Anne N. Fermin

52
BIRTHDAY: January 02, 2002
AGE: 20
GENDER: Female
BIRTHPLACE: Cabanatuan City
ADDRESS: Pulo, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija
CIVIL STATUS: Single
RELIGION: Catholic
HEIGHT: 4'11
WEIGHT: 41
PARENTS:
FATHER: Eddie C. Fermin
OCCUPATION: Barangay Official
MOTHER: Marianne N. Fermin
OCCUPATION: Tailor
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GRADUATED FROM: Pulo, Elementary School
AWARDS: none
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATED FROM: Pulo, National High School
AWARDS: none
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATED FROM: Pulo, National High School
AWARDS: none
TERTIARY: Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology
EMAIL ADDRESS: triciafermin973@gmail.coM

CURRICULUM VITAE

NAME: Frankie V. Panganiban

53
BIRTHDAY: February 17, 2003
AGE: 20
GENDER: Female
BIRTHPLACE: Cabanatuan City
ADDRESS: Mahipon Gapan City, Nueva Ecija
CIVIL STATUS: Single
RELIGION: Iglesia Ni Cristo
HEIGHT: 5'4
WEIGHT: 56 kg
PARENTS:
FATHER: Rafael Panganiban
OCCUPATION: OFW
MOTHER: Herminia Panganiban
OCCUPATION: sewer
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GRADUATED FROM: San Roque Elementary School
AWARDS: none
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATED FROM: Herminio G. Nicolas High School
AWARDS: none
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATED FROM: Herminio G. Nicolas High School
AWARDS: none
TERTIARY: Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology
EMAIL ADDRESS: frankiepanganiban873@gmail.com

CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME: Mary Joy S. Rayo
BIRTHDAY: December 26, 2001
AGE: 20

54
GENDER: Female
BIRTHPLACE: San Mariano, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija
ADDRESS: Tabon, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija
CIVIL STATUS: Single
RELIGION: Roman Catholic
HEIGHT: 5’4
WEIGHT: 65
PARENTS:
FATHER: Federico M. Rayo
OCCUPATION: Construction Worker
MOTHER: Marisa S. Rayo
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GRADUATED: Tabon Elementary School
AWARDS: none
JUNIOR HIGHSCHOOL GRADUATED: Nueva Ecija University of Science and
Technology (Tabon Annex)
AWARDS: none
SENIOR HIGHSCHOOL GRADUATED: ACLC College of Gapan Main Campus
AWARDS: none
TERTIARY: Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology San Isidro Campus
EMAIL ADDRESS:

CURRICULUM VITAE

NAME: Mark Anthony T. Reyes

BIRTHDAY: August 30. 2000

55
AGE: 22
GENDER: Male
BIRTHPLACE: Lambakin Jaen Nueva Ecija
ADDRESS: Lambakin Jaen Nueva Ecija
CIVIL STATUS: Single
RELIGION: Roman Catholic
HEIGHT: 5'4
WEIGHT:
PARENTS:
FATHER: Ernesto Reyes
OCCUPATION: Carpenter
MOTHER: Lita Reyes
OCCUPATION: Housekeeper
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GRADUATED FROM: Lambakin Elementary School
AWARDS: none
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATED FROM: Lambakin National High School
AWARDS: none
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATED FROM: Lambakin National High School
AWARDS: Athlete of the year
TERTIARY: Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology
EMAIL ADDRESS: markmarkmark.302000@gmail.com

56