Reconstructing Disaster Smart School Policy: Adaptive and Participatory Governance for Resilient Education in West Sumatra, Indonesia

The term Safe Schools in the Indonesian context refers to the integration of disaster risk reduction (DRR) into the country’s education system, based on three core components: safe school infrastructure, school-based DRR, and a curriculum guided by DRR. Some related regulations in Indonesia implement these principles; however, their implementation remains problematic due to institutional and contextual constraints in certain regions. The policy orientation of disaster risk reduction education was also viewed negatively as overly technical and less participatory, particularly in resource-poor areas [34]. Furthermore, the proportion of access to disaster education, as well as the accessibility of disaster training or workshops, varied across urban and rural areas [35], creating a disparity in preparedness.

The notion of Safe Schools in this country is understood as embedding disaster risk reduction throughout the education system through three elements: safe learning facilities, school-based disaster management, and DRR integration into the curriculum. These principles are integrated into several directly related Indonesian legal regulations, although the contextual and institutional implementation across different areas varies. A review found that disaster risk reduction education policy has been criticized as a technocratic approach and as insufficiently participatory, particularly in limited-resource settings [34]. Additionally, this investigation raised concerns about the uneven access to disaster education between urban and rural areas, which undermines preparedness [35].

Adaptive governance highlights the critical role of flexible, learning-oriented, and multi-stakeholder modes of governance in addressing complex risks such as disasters [36]. This is pertinent to examining how DSS policies may need to be rebuilt to enable greater adaptive coordination across sectors and government levels. Secondly, institutional theory suggests that the success of policy is contingent on the interaction among formal structures, norms, and socially shaped bureaucratic routines [37]. In the case of DSS, policies are frequently unconcerned, as they are not embedded in the budget regime, notions of what counts or performance, and organisational culture within educational organisations [38-40].

The co-production theory posits that public policies are more effective when they are created and implemented through collaborative efforts among state actors and communities [41]. The roles of the school community, teachers, parents, and the RDMA in developing ownership and sustainability of DSS are also main factors.

The second group is referred to as disaster smart schools, and partnerships among government, NGOs, and organizations in the area of disaster should be emphasized with mutual hardship for safer support of earthquake and tsunamis issues; educational disparity towards policy advocacy strategies to improve West Sumatra’s governance on disaster education [42]. The article shifts the focus from policy structures to disaster risk reduction in West Sumatra, Indonesia, and calls for stronger governance. This educational focus can contribute to learning pathways and support DRR outcomes, as identified in the most recent Sendai Frameworks for Action, including addressing inequality and disaster education [3].

The authors emphasize the importance of systematic disaster education and community capacity building in West Sumatra, particularly for children, to reduce vulnerabilities and strengthen preparedness, underscoring the need for targeted policies and ongoing education in other disaster-prone areas [43]. The article focuses on the importance of holistic, decolonizing peace educational curriculum and teacher capacity in Indonesia to counter social injustices. It indicates that effective community-based education management and its flexibility are very important for developing resilience in disaster-prone areas such as West Sumatra [44].

The paper points out that achieving effective disaster education within disaster-afflicted schools relies on best-practice policies and community support, as well as overcoming obstacles such as the relevance of content and the availability of qualified teachers, to improve environmental knowledge and resilience in places such as West Sumatra [45]. The article outlines the importance of integrating disaster mitigation education into all subjects within the Indonesian curriculum, raising awareness of inequities in DME, and mandating the closure of such gaps through an updated policy focused on students who are born and growing up surrounded by hazards [46].

Comparative studies indicate that upscaling disaster education is more effective as a system reform than as a stand-alone approach. The Comprehensive School Safety Framework (CSSF) is a frequently cited source that embodies embedded learning within an inclusive package/coordinated policy and action agenda, safer school facilities, school safety/continuity management planning, and educational programmes for risk reduction. The essential lesson is that learning becomes scalable and sustainable only when governance, routines, and resources are harmonized at the school/district level with the curriculum, activities, and community preparedness [47].

In New Zealand, assessed drills have demonstrated that practice, unambiguous action scripts, and public visibility enhance protective-action knowledge and preparedness behaviour [48]. These align with Indonesia’s DSS, particularly in low-capacity areas: use a minimum viable package, scale out through train-the-trainer and shared kits, and track a few realistic indicators to foster learning without overwhelming the system.

All transcripts (n = 35) from five regencies/cities in West Sumatra Province were analyzed in NVivo 14. The open coding process yielded 162 initial codes, which were subsequently reduced to 6 main themes and 21 sub-themes that explained the obstacles and opportunities for DSS policy reconstruction. The following is a narrative of each theme accompanied by empirical indicators (number of references = R; percentage of text coverage = C%).

Normative & Less Contextual Policy Design

Analysis indicates that policies remain “one-size-fits-all.” In NVivo, 34 sources of information (R = 34 | C = 6.8%) highlighted the absence of technical guidance appropriate to local disaster typologies (Table 2).

Table 2. The absence of technical guidance appropriate to local disaster typologies

Fragmentation of Governance & Cross-Sector Coordination

Forty-two sources of information (C = 8.5%) mapped the weak synergy among actors and the emergence of institutional fragmentation (Table 3).

Table 3. Emergence of institutional fragmentation

Government informants predominantly attributed implementation gaps to resource constraints and the absence of earmarked budgets, whereas school leaders emphasized ambiguous technical guidance and ad-hoc coordination routines. This divergence suggests that implementation failures are reinforced by misaligned problem framings across governance levels, thereby weakening accountability and encouraging symbolic compliance rather than operational preparedness.

Limited HR Capacity

28 sources of information (C = 5.3%) indicated a teacher-principal competency gap, hampering human capability (Table 4).

Table 4. Emergence of institutional fragmentation

Regional & Resource Disparities

This theme emerged most frequently (46 sources; C = 9.7%), supporting the concept of disaster education inequality (Table 5).

Unsustainable Funding & No KPIs

Twenty-five sources of information (C = 4.6%) highlighted the absence of specific budget lines and performance indicators in the Strategic Plan (Table 6).

Table 5. Disaster education inequality

Table 6. Specific budget lines and performance indicators

Table 7. Theme emerged as an opportunity stream

Community Participation & Technology as an Opportunity

Although less frequent (17 sources of information; C = 3.1%), this theme emerged as an opportunity stream (Table 7).

Synthesis of Findings

1. The normative nature of policies and institutional fragmentation explain the low number of safe schools (26.4%).
2. Regional disparities highlight the need for affirmative finance and offline technology support.
3. Youth participation & technology becomes a policy window for policy improvement, in line with the adaptive governance framework.

Such findings reinforce the need for the reincarnation of DSS policy design, informed by contextual guidance, cross-sectoral taskforce arrangements, performance-based funding schemes, and digital dashboard integration, harnessing energy from youth movements in schools to reinforce culture and DRR awareness. The findings of this study also indicate several systemic issues related to the implementation of the DSS policy in Indonesia, identified through qualitative data analysis using NVivo. Six themes were appropriately identified as interrelated problem nodes: normative policy design, fragmented governance, poor human resource (HR) capacity, regional disparities and unsustainable funding, and community participation & technology potential as opportunities.

First, the DSS's policy design is perceived as highly normative and not grounded in the local risk realities of each region. After coding the NVivo search results, 34 references were identified that mentioned the lack of technical attachments at the regional level. SOPs used in schools tend to be overly general and, in some cases, are taken directly from the internet, with no consideration for local disaster types or features. Furthermore, the application of DRR material in the curriculum is not yet very favourable for pupils; most teachers deliver it only as a CNP activity rather than as core learning aligned with curriculum objectives.

Second, there are serious problems in governance and cross-sector coordination. The division of responsibilities among the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, RDMA, and authorities has meant that no single body bears full responsibility for DSS operations. 42 information sources in NVivo indicate the non-involvement of RDMA in school planning forums and the absence of a regional head decree to establish a cross-sector team for DSS management. This is consistent with the institutionalism concept that disconnected institutions can impede policy execution [37].

Third, the capacity of school human resources to support DSS policies is also low. Up to 28 information sources indicate that the typical primary teacher and principal have never attended a specific course on disaster education. In other instances, new principals were rotated before DSS could be implemented long enough to achieve meaningful sustainability. Indeed, evacuation simulation drills, as preparedness exercises, were conducted ceremoniously rather than based on systematic assessment. This depicts the low level of human capability development, as initiated by Sen [49], in which persons or institutions lack the capacity to respond to hazard risks.

Fourth, conclusions are dominated by regional differences. It is strongly recommended that evacuation routes, fire extinguishers, and reliable internet connections for accessing online DRR learning are not available in these types of schools, especially in regencies/cities. In NVivo coding, 46 sources of information reflect logistical and accessibility barriers.

A fifth issue concerns the chartering of DSS policies. Nowhere in the SOAF or PSAF could a specific budget code or nomenclature be found that specifically covered DSS activities. Using NVivo, identify 25 sources of information on the lack of KPIs or sustainable budgeting tools. Projects in DSS primarily depend on long-term funding from donor agencies or corporate corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and lack exit strategies.

Sixth, at present, community involvement and digital technology are not at their prime; however, both show promise as avenues for shaping DSS policy. Seventeen sources reported positive actions, including the establishment of student-led disaster preparedness groups, the use of SMS gateways as early warning systems, and school principals' requests to create a digital dashboard for school preparedness. This indicates the presence of a policy window, as described by King [50], in which opportunities to change policy may arise when problems, solutions, and political streams converge.

These results generally support the conclusion that the current reconstruction of communication DSS policy should focus on promoting flexible, locally applicable technical guidelines; intersectoral teams with regional regulations as facilitators; teacher training; teacher competency enhancement; and budget reforms based on service performance across digital monitoring systems. Moreover, the active involvement of school communities and local technologies has the potential to address structural and spatial constraints and to enhance DSS governance in the future.

Figure 1. Disaster Smart School Research findings coding matrix heatmap

Strong thematic connections emerge from the NVivo coding matrix linking DSS policy issues to field-level implementation indicators. The rows of the matrix reflect key themes, and the columns indicate specific indicators that serve as focal points of action. Uncontextual policy design is primarily associated with the absence of local technical support. The theme governing fragmentation is predominantly operationalised through the indicator Cross-Sector Coordination, which indicates a lack of policy coherence among these institutions. Low human resource capacity correlates with poor teacher training. On the other hand, regional disparities take the lead in terms of three distinct issues. Alternatively, community participation & technology has the potential to leverage community-oriented policies and digital technologies. The latter matrix provides the rationale for developing more responsive and evidence-based DSS measures (Figure 1).

Table 8. Disaster Smart School research findings coding matrix

Based on Table 8 above, the thematic connection between DSS policy questions and parochial indicators in the field is evident in our codings. The rows in the matrix symbolise key themes identified in policy documents and interviews, while the columns represent key indicators that are crucial junctures in the implementation of DSS policies. It can be inferred from the matrix that non-contextual policy design is the most strongly associated theme, based on parameter-local technical guidance derived from 12 sources of information. This reinforces the need to reconstruct policies in accordance with local policy configurations. The governing fragmentation, meanwhile, ranks No. 2 and also ranks extremely high on the cross-sector coordination indicator, with 17 information sources. This can be attributed to the lack of synergy between RDMA and the Education Office Agency, which would seem most fundamental to adaptive governance of education disaster policy. Many informants indicated that there is no permanent coordination space and that an institutional architecture to ensure the continued operation of DSS in the region is absent. The category-limited HR capacity was the most frequent tag for teacher training, demonstrating that the opportunity to have a DRR program systematically impairs teachers and school managing directors׳' proficiency in responding to disasters and production of operational SOPs.

There is an element of regional disparities in the relationship at a very high rank for infrastructure (17 contents) and for Special Allocation Fund/School Operational Assistance (6 contents), which means that many schools located at disadvantageous locations do not have evacuation routes, safety equipment, or simply proper budget. It is consistent with the notion of disaster education inequality and further supports the claim that DSS policies should prioritise spatial equity. Lastly, although the source is less common than other themes, the theme Community Participation & Technology indicates potential for bottom-up capacity building. Seventeen sources of information on student and community initiatives emerged, including the establishment of disaster-preparatory clubs by students, the role of social media in disaster socialization, and the involvement with education activities of evacuation training by parents. Accordingly, this is a favorable sign for building more participatory and community-prepared policies, while also leaving room for the integration of digital technology into preparedness strategies.

In general, this coding matrix gives a powerful visual and quantitative impression of how each DSS policy theme is distributed and contributes to these macro-level indicators. These results not only reinforce previously studied field narratives but also provide an essential foundation for developing a more accurate, evidence-based framework for reconstructing local policy.

Policy Reconstruction

Policy Reconstruction Policy reconstruction is a mechanism of updating the content, form, and operation of public policy in such a way that would allow it to be more applicable, effective, and sensitive to the changing environment. From the perspective of the DSS policy in Indonesia, the urgency of reconstruction stems from the incongruity between normative goals and their on-the-ground realization. The findings of data analysis using NVivo demonstrate the complexity of interpreting and reframing examples in relation to policy reconstruction, as described in this research [51] and in the post-positivist policy reconstruction approach in reference [52].

Problem Reframing

The idea of policy reconstruction recognizes that reformulation is an essential first step. Results: The study indicates that DSS policies tend to overemphasize normative dimensions without contextualizing specific field problems. The reframing of the issue in this arena is not that we have an implementation problem, but that it was a failed design to begin with, one that lacked understanding of local variation and institutional capability. In other words, a risk-informed design approach for localized hazards should be adapted to reconstruct the DSS policies.

Reconstruction of Policy Contents and Aims

According to the NVivo findings, the absence of context-specific SOPs, the lack of teacher training, and the use of internet-copied SOPs are indicators of weak articulation of operational policy objectives. As part of a broader redefinition of policy, the goals of DSS must be reframed to develop not simply safe schools but adaptive, collaborative, community-preparedness governance. This is in line with the conception of policy development [53], which must address both what works and what is important in its social context.

Reconstruction of Policy Actors and Institutions

Reordering of roles and the relationship between actors are significant components of reconstruction theory. The facts, such as poor cooperation among segments, the inactive form of RDMA according to schools, and the lack of community, indicate that this institution is non-adaptive [37]. To reduce and manage the disaster risk, it is required to change the actor structure through the establishment of a Regional Disaster Smart School Task Force, which is composed of elements of the Education Office Agency, RDMA, and the school committee, as well as legalized in the regional head regulation, so that it has implementative power.

Reconstruction of Implementation Mechanism

The application of reengineering to policy underscores the importance of redesigning both the implementation process and the instrument. Field observations. In practice, disaster education in schools is minimal, and exercises are theoretical; schools lack a preparedness assessment program. The reproduction of the actual process is through:

1. Development of flexible and modular technical guidelines based on the nature of the regional risk.
2. Development of a school digital readiness dashboard that uses the information from Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, NDMA, and RDMA.

Retrofit of Instruments and Financing Strategies

Policy reforms are not the only issues that must be addressed within these new financing instruments. Accordingly, it is established that DSS has no authority code for the School Operational Assistance budget. Therefore, realignment is needed through:

1. Identification of DSS special account code in Regular School Operational Assistance Funds and inclusion of corresponding DSS performance indicator in the Minimum Service Standards (MSS) on education.
2. CSR funding, Climate finance (green fund), result-based budgeting, and various blended financing models.

Reconstruction of Social Interaction and Participation (Deliberative Re-Engagement)

Policy is being reshaped through a deliberative reconstruction, shaped not only by the bureaucracy but also through local involvement. Induct insights of NVivo that there is a grassroots dimension to the development of student alert clubs and school principals seeking an early warning mechanism. Therefore, the rebuilding process should include: First, the co-production of preparedness documents by schools, communities, and local authorities. Second, direct student participation in community-oriented school readiness training, simulations, and surveillance.

By adopting the framework of public policy reconstruction theory, this study suggests the need for an all-encompassing reconstruction not only of the content but also of the actors, mechanisms, and incentives within the DSS policy in Indonesia. This reconfigured DSS policy should move from a symbolic policy to an engaged, context-based, and spatially justice-oriented policy. This will ensure that schools are not merely aware of disasters but also ready and resilient in confronting their impacts within their localities.

More details of the consequences arising from the policies and strategies for DSS reconstruction can be observed in Table 9 below:

Table 9. Policy implications and strategies for implementing Disaster Smart School

Contextual Policy Design: Local Risk-Based Modularization

One of the key implications for DSS policy reconstruction is the need to shift from a national normative model to a contextual, modular approach responsive to on-the-ground risks. Field observations indicate that a one-size-fits-all approach characterizes existing DSS policies, and their flexibility does not make them adaptable to areas facing diverse threats. In this regard, the recommendation in the study [54] Sendai Framework Mid-Term Review suggests that only a local risk-based approach will ensure the success of disaster-resilient education policies. Thus, it is recommended that a Guideline to the Technical Standards of DSS for Risk Category be developed, together with the appendix used by local governments and universities. This also resonates with the concept of tailored policy development [55], which emphasizes that fit with local socio-ecological conditions is of great consequence for the effectiveness of public policies.

Cross-Sector Coordination: Strengthening Regional Institutions

Cross-sectoral capacity integration is an essential factor in DSS policy governance. The fragmentation in institutions, as revealed in the study—RDMA, the Education Office Agency, and schools are operating silos, is a sign of failed institutional integration. Across various governance theories and systems, Head [56] emphasized that inter-actor collaboration and consistent role division are key to addressing complex problems such as education disasters. The recommended implementation strategies are to establish a regional DSS Task Force following a Governor/Regent Decree and to integrate the DSS into the Regional Medium-Term Development Plan and the Development Planning Meeting Forum, so that it is mainstreamed into regional development planning rather than sectoral plans. This serves, at the same time, as an institutionalized mechanism to ensure policy coherence among regional presidencies.

Strengthening Human Resources Capacity: Integration of Training into Continuing Professional Development Management Information System (CPDMIS)

School human resource capacity is the fulcrum of DSS success, but it is currently very weak. According to the study [57], the success of school-based disaster risk reduction interventions largely depends on people’s level of risk comprehension and the way safety measures are practiced. One of the key recommendations is to embed DRR training within CPDMIS and to develop online micro-credentials for teachers and principals. This process is consistent with a model of policy capacity building that emphasizes the need for ongoing, locally based training [58].

Results-Based Financing: An Incitement for Spatial Equity

The financing barrier is key because the DSS policy lacks a clearly defined and sustainable funding mechanism. The studies [54] institution suggests that the DRR policy is financed through result-based financing, which rewards educational units that meet preparedness indicators. For the reformation of the DSS Policy in this aspect, it is necessary to set up a program with a special account code in the school operational assistance subsidy or physical education special allocation fund, a results incentives system that can induce schools to carry out the DSS standard positively. This approach would also need to consider spatial equity by making positive allocations to schools in the frontier, outermost, and disadvantaged regions, through cooperation with private-sector CSR or green-transition funding. This is an emerging public policy trend in which sustainability, efficiency, and inclusion are embedded in policy financing design [57].

Digital Monitoring & Evaluation: School Readiness Dashboard

The DSS policy monitoring and evaluation system should be improved through a digitized, data-driven, and nationally integrated approach. There is currently no digitized, open-source school readiness assessment service. To address this challenge, the proposed solution is to develop a national school preparedness dashboard that will draw data from both EMIS and InaRISK. Decision makers are encouraged to digitize the system as part of DRR policies, not only for efficiency and accountability but also for policy makers to make effective evidence-based decisions. Digitizing government monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of program evaluation, and with more targeted and evidence-based decision-making processes and accountability oversight will be strengthened [59, 60].

The five primary DSS constructs conceptualized and described in the proposed DSS reconstruction table illustrate the imperative to shift the dominant paradigm of a symbolic administrative system toward a new policy paradigm articulated around contextual, collaborative and performance-based policy systems. By drawing on contemporary public policy literature, such as adaptive governance, policy modularization, and result-based financing, Indonesia can develop a disaster-resilient education system. This rebuilding strategy is also crucial for achieving the SDGs, as emphasized in the National Medium-Term Development Plan 2025–2045, which emphasizes system resilience and social inclusion.

SWOT Analysis

Furthermore, based on the research findings, a SWOT analysis was conducted with detailed explanations as shown in Table 10.

Table 10. Comprehensive SWOT Matrix for the Disaster Smart Schools Policy

Although the mapping of the entire SWOT landscape is provided in Table 10, its implementation in low-cap districts should prioritize this explicitly to avoid developing an exhaustive reform agenda that would be impractical to implement in one go. Hence, the SWOT cells are converted to a staged strategy based on three decision criteria: (i) anticipated reduction in risk to student safety, (ii) feasibility within existing local administrative capacity, and (iii) resource intensity. Equity is considered a cross-cutting principle: remote and high-risk area actions, which have the most significant impact on reducing disaster education inequality, are prioritised.

Priority 1 (0–12 months): Establish governance and regular work patterns that are low-cost yet high-value. This tier ensures that minimum standards and accountability are sufficiently defined (addressing W1, W10) by releasing modular hazard specific technical annexes and integrating a limited number of DSS indicators into district education KPIs; formalizing the light inter-agency DSS Task Force via Governor/Regent decree (addressing W2, T1); and mandates basic SOPs, evacuation mapping established at target schools to have drills at least twice per year (addressing W3,15). These activities are based more on orderliness and arrangement than on high capital investment and are appropriate for low-capacity localities.

Table 11. SWOT action strategy

Priority 2 (1-3 years): develop capacity and targeted resources to address the gap between intention and practice. Once minimal routine maintenance is in place, districts can expand their training and supervision by embedding DRR micro-credentials within CPDMIS and using train-the-trainer cascades (answering W5, harnessing O2). Simultaneously, a modest outcome-based fund may be piloted to assist low-capacity schools with small top-ups contingent on observable indicators, thereby lowering W7 while safeguarding equity. Start digital monitoring W6 offline-first dashboard do rather than expensive bespoke systems linking existing EMIS with InaRISK data Controlled resource demands.

Priority 3 (3–5 years): Disseminate more expensive innovations and structural upgrades once the foundations of the system are established. Higher on the scale within this tier lie a strengthened EdTech, IoT early-warning integrated into high-risk clusters, and wider infrastructure retrofit through blended finance to support climate-resilience uptake (opening up O3 while addressing the downsides of T2 and T3). Sequencing is essential: state-of-the-art digital tools and infrastructure investments are most effective when they reinforce governance routines that have already been institutionalized, rather than when they attempt to compensate for their absence (Table 11).

In more practical terms, the SWOT strategy can be made operational as a minimum viable package first rule: until components of Priority 1 are demonstrably present and operational, districts should not proceed to Priority 2 or 3. This process transforms the SWOT into an implementable roadmap with precise sequencing and resource-sensitive decisions.

Strategic sequencing is essential: implement Priority 1 governance and minimum routines first, then expand capacity and targeted financing (Priority 2), and only then scale up higher-cost technologies and infrastructure (Priority 3) to keep the recommendations feasible for low-capacity districts.

Analytical Highlights

1. Leverage Strengths & Opportunities to Correct Weaknesses: Example: the existing regulatory umbrella (S1) and decentralized autonomy (O1) can be used to develop localized technical annexes that address the “normative-only” weakness.
2. Mitigate Threats by Reinforcing Strengths: Political deprioritisation (T1) can be mitigated by embedding DSS indicators into mandatory national KPIs—an action facilitated by the existence of a legal framework (S1).
3. Exploit Opportunities for Quick Wins: Digital-education momentum (O2) offers a cost-efficient path to scale teacher training (addressing W5) and set up the long-overdue monitoring dashboard (addressing W6).
4. Address Equity Gaps: Blended finance from climate funds (O3), coupled with CSR (S1), enables targeted investment in Remote Areas, thereby addressing the most severe weakness (W4) and threat (T2).

The DSS policy in Indonesia faces structural and institutional challenges that can be examined using classical public policy theory, particularly its cycle model input data [61]. In the production process, DSS policy has become a regulated product and is subsequently regulated under the Minister of Education and Culture Regulation Number 33 of 2019. Based on this model, the mere legislation is not enough for the policy effect when there are no legitimation and destigmatization parts as part of an implementation and evaluation cycle, which respond to local processes. This is the primary drawback of SWOT: it is a normative policy or approach without contextual guidelines and lacks performance-based indicators.

Additionally, applying the institutional theory perspective from the researchers (60), it is possible to argue that insufficient cross-sectoral coordination and overlapping responsibilities between the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, NDMA, and local governments produce institutional fragmentation. This contributes to the low degree of synergy in DSS implementation, as indicated by the SWOT weaknesses and threats columns. The lack of a dedicated unit or task force to promote integration at the regional level also hinders the translation of policies into practice.

The adaptive governance perspective emphasizes institutional flexibility, shared learning, and collaborative mechanisms in managing dynamic risks, such as natural disasters [62-64]. From this perspective, the educational system's limited flexibility in tailoring DSS policies to local contexts is a key limitation. For instance, schools in remote locations have more unequal access to preparedness infrastructure and training. This is consistent with evidence that disaster education inequality in Indonesia indicates that risk exposure is greater among individuals who lack equal access to risk-mitigation education [65, 66].

In terms of capability theory [49], DSS policies that do not provide resource support and expert training for teachers and principals impede the development of human capabilities to respond to emergencies. The schools are passive and dependent elements, no longer able to function in terms of their capacity as adapting units within a disaster management system. Participation rates in the school community, including among parents and students, also indicate the inadequacy of policies in fostering inclusive collective agency [67, 68].

From a policy perspective, the SWOT analysis highlights an opportunity space to bolster DSS through technological devices, augmented financial resources from green funds and multilateral donors, and youth activism on climate change-related issues. According to the Multiple Streams Framework [50], policy windows emerge when the problem stream, policy stream, and political stream intersect, thereby facilitating deliberative policy reconstruction. This opportunity remains open, even though the government has included disaster-resilient education in the National Long-Term Development Plan.

For DSS policies to be more adaptive and impactful, a co-production approach [41] is instrumental: policies should be designed and implemented in cooperation with the government, educational institutions, RDMA, communities, and the private sector. This is what is recommended in the SWOT synergy strategy column, namely developing a school readiness dashboard, linking it with the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology and NDMA data; incentive-based budgeting linked with preparedness parameters based on which schools have done their homework; evolving DRR training micro-credentials for teachers through the CPDMIS system.