Pedagogía del cuidado

The importance of having developed plans and procedures in preparation for future emergencies, to ensure the welfare of students and staff (Smith, Kress, Fenstemaker, Ballard & Hyder, 2001) is echoed throughout the school preparedness literature (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics, 2008a; International Finance Corporation, 2010). Plans need to be living documents that include actions to be taken before, during and after an emergency event (Burling & Hyle, 1997) and that are reviewed in an ongoing basis (RiskRED, 2009) to ensure they reflect changes (social, economic, psychological) to the school and wider community (Stuart, Patterson, Johnston, and Peace, 2013). In addition, any emergency plans must remain functional when alternative personnel are fulfilling key roles (MacNeil & Topping, 2007).

While there is no ‘one size fits all’, ideal plan type for schools (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2008a), there are core aspects that should be included in every plan, and be considered in combination with the unique requirements of each school. Primarily, school plans need to meet the requirements of various emergency situations, not just those that seem most likely. However, that does not necessitate having to develop individual plans for each emergency type. Best practice advice within the school preparedness literature (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics, 2008a; Chung et al., 2009; GADRRRES, 2017; International Finance Corporation, 2010; US Department of Education, 2013) advocates for schools to focus their emergency preparedness efforts on developing plans for four core response procedures (i.e., shelter-in-place, lockdown, building evacuation, relocation). The rationale behind this approach is that when

for earthquakes), the four response procedures will cover the majority of response requirements that schools may have, irrespective of the hazard or emergency type, as each response procedure can be used for several emergency situations. For example, building evacuation may be the appropriate response in a fire, earthquake, chemical spill or gas leak, depending on the specific event.

As well as having plans for the four core response procedures, the importance of schools having plans and procedures in place for reunifying families is also recognised (e.g., GADRRRES, 2017; International Finance Corporation, 2010; Ronan & Johnston, 2005). Family reunification has the potential to be one of the most problematic areas of an emergency response (RiskRED, 2009), and for this reason it is essential that schools have detailed, and well-established plans for reunifying families after emergencies (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2008a). Furthermore, having parents familiar with the school’s reunification procedures can reduce anxiety and confusion of students and parents (e.g., Johnson, Johnston, Ronan & Peace, 2014a; Ronan & Johnston, 2005), thereby limiting the chance they will hinder the response efforts of staff (e.g., RiskRED, 2009).

Overall, studies from the US and Australia indicate most school districts and individual schools had developed emergency plans (e.g., 96% – Boon et al., 2014; 95% – US Government Accountability Office, 2007; 98% – Petal, Green, Wood, & Nguyen, 2011; 95% – Smith et al., 2001), but when asked about plans for specific emergency procedures, response rates varied. For example, Graham et al. (2006) found that 96% of US schools had plans for relocating students to an alternate site in an emergency, 92% had plans for lockdowns, 86% had developed plans for mass casualty events, and 75% had procedures for family reunification.

Specific plan elements have also been identified as being beneficial for an effective response, and therefore, require inclusion in planning and preparation efforts. First and foremost, is the need to include clear, pre-defined roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders (e.g., school leaders, staff, and parents) to avoid a chaotic response (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2008a; Smith et al., 2001). In addition, it is essential to include specific details about communications and information sharing with staff, students, and parents during an emergency, in particular what methods (e.g., texting, email, and social media) of communication will be used (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2008a; Kano, Ramirez, Ybarra, Frias & Bourque, 2007; RiskRED, 2009). Communications are the foundation of an effective response but also the element most likely to fail (Chung et al., 2009), due to limited or misinformation. Another plan element

recommended in the literature is the need to develop maps of the school layout, evacuation routes, and relocation sites (Chung et al., 2009; International Finance Corporation, 2010; Smith et al., 2001), which can be shared with parents to aid family reunification efforts, and also provided to emergency services that may be required to respond to emergencies (Crichton, Ramsay & Kelly, 2009) at the school. Information on what elements schools include in their plans is limited; with the data available indicating schools vary in the contents of their plans. For example, Kano et al. (2007), in their study of Los Angeles schools, reported that in 92% of schools’ staff were aware of their emergency response roles and responsibilities. In another study based in Southern California (RiskRED, 2009), only 23% of schools had identified staff members that needed to be released early in the event of an emergency (e.g., due to family commitments such as young children in other schools or childcare). A further example that compares schools from the Central US (Petal et al., 2011) and Southern California (RiskRED, 2009) found site maps had been developed in 79% and 48% of schools, respectively.

One area of school-based emergency planning that has been identified as requiring attention is the need to consider the response requirements of students and staff with disabilities or special needs (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics, 2008b; Boon et al., 2014; Clarke, Embury, Jones & Yssel, 2014; US Government Accountability Office, 2007), in particular, the accessibility of evacuation routes and any additional support necessary in the assembly area. As with other aspects of planning, rates of schools with plans for students with disabilities or special needs varied across the US-based studies. Petal et al. (2011) in their survey of Central Southern US states schools reported the highest number of schools with plans for disabled or special needs students (89%). Rates were lower in three additional US studies: Graham et al. (2006 – 78%); RiskRED (2009 – 74%); and the US Government Accountability Office (2007 – 67%). An Australian study (Boon et al., 2014) of 80 schools, which looked specifically at the preparations for students with disabilities by hazard type, found that less than one-third of schools had plans that specifically addressed the needs of students with disabilities, with rates dropping to as low as ten-percent for some hazards. Boon et al. (2014) also raised concern about the limited engagement between schools and their stakeholders (especially parents and care workers) when developing their emergency plans for students with disabilities or special needs. Such a lack of consultation seems short-sighted considering that parents (and carers) would be in the best position to offer advice about the response capabilities and specific requirements of individual students, whether or not they have a registered disability. Preparing for students with

special needs and disabilities has long been recognised, but little progress has been made, indicating that these students remain at increased risk during emergencies. Often linked to planning efforts within the literature, is the expectation that schools will have supplies on site for use in emergencies. Supplies such as food, water, and first aid materials are recommended. The three California-based studies (Kano & Bourque, 20071; Kano et al., 2007; RiskRED, 2009) reported levels of emergency supplies in schools: first aid equipment (94%, 90%, 90%, respectively); food (51%, 50%, 75%); and water (74%, 72%, no percentage available for Kano et al.). It is also recommended that each classroom has go-bags or get away kits (Chung et al., 2009; Petal et al., 2011; RiskRED, 2009) which contain basic supplies that may be needed in an emergency (e.g., class lists, first aid kit, essential medication, copies of emergency procedures, etc.), and which can be taken with the class if they need to evacuate or relocate to an alternative site. Burling and Hyle (1997) suggested that schools may have to shelter staff and students for up to 72 hours after an emergency, and it may be possible that the wider community will also seek assistance at schools (Kano & Bourque, 2007). Therefore, the supplies available should reflect these possibilities. Irrespective of what supplies are on-site, they should be up-to-date and in good condition (Kano et al., 2007).

A final aspect of school-based planning to be considered, is the need to prioritise the development of plans for the continuity of school operations (e.g., alternative learning spaces and modes of instruction) after a disaster or emergency, to enable students ongoing access to education (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics, 2008a; GADRRRES, 2017; US Department of Education, 2013). Ensuring continued access to education is beneficial for the ongoing welfare of students after an emergency and assisting in family and community recovery (e.g., Peek, 2008). The interruption of education after an emergency or disaster can adversely impact student academic performance and long-term educational outcomes, through extended absences or dropping out of school, which can in turn result in negative impacts for students, their families and the wider community (e.g. International Finance Corporation, 2010), especially where there are pre-existing challenges (e.g. displacement, family instability) (Peek, 2008). Three studies make specific reference to education continuity planning efforts. In a nation-wide survey of US school districts (US Government Accountability Office, 2007), only 44% reported having developed education continuity plans. Schools

1

Kano & Bourque (2007) provided results by school type (i.e., elementary, middle, and high schools). Therefore, an average percentage score for the schools in this study has been included to allow for comparison.

in the Central US (Petal et al., 2011) reported higher rates than their Californian counterparts (RiskRED, 2009) for three comparable variables: identified alternate sites for learning (64% and 32%, respectively); off-site back up of important information (60% and 40%); and developed alternative schedules and methods for student instruction (51% and 26%). In the US-based studies discussed, much of the variation in preparedness levels may be due to differing statutory requirements of school-based emergency preparedness activities in each state.

Schools may also be required to temporarily close in response to an emergency event (e.g., Awofisayo, Ibbotson, Smith, Janmohamed, Mohamed, & Olowokure, 2013; Convery, Carroll & Balogh, 2014; Kayman et al., 2015). Therefore, it is necessary to have plans in place for how schools will close with little or no prior warning, including how they will inform parents, and care for students until they can be collected. A review of preparedness efforts in US schools (US Government Accountability Office, 2007) suggested that many may already have plans for temporary school closure and education continuity in their existing pandemic response plans, which could provide a starting point for schools.

In sum, planning for emergencies is recommended throughout the school preparedness literature. However, little is known about whether schools are undertaking all or any of the specific plans and procedures endorsed. Where researchers have collected data on preparedness levels in schools, findings indicate variations in the levels of planning and plan content within and between the schools in the studies discussed. What remains certain is that where schools do not have adequate emergency plans, including comprehensive procedures for family reunification, they may be failing in their duty-of-care obligations, which requires that students be kept safe during and after emergency events until they can be reunited with their families.

A well-developed emergency plan can influence how school officials manage a crisis in the short-term and can affect how schools recover in the long-term (Smith et al. 2001). However, developing emergency plans is only part of an effective response. Students and staff need hazards education and emergency response training to effectively implement the schools’ plans (Heath, Ryan, Dean & Bingham, 2007).