Developing An Adaptive School Safety Risk Governance Framework for Ajman: Integrating Leadership, Risk Assessment, Monitoring, and Organisational Learning

School safety policies may remain fragmented when leadership, risk assessment, monitoring, and organisational learning are not integrated within a single adaptive governance process. This study developed a systems-based risk governance framework for schools in Ajman by integrating quantitative, qualitative, and documentary evidence. A mixed methods design combined a survey of 110 teachers, administrators, counsellors, safety officers, and information technology staff with 15 semi-structured interviews and an analysis of three national policy documents. Survey data were analysed in IBM SPSS; interview data were examined thematically; and documentary evidence was analysed for recurring governance requirements. Mean scores were high for school safety governance (M = 3.870, SD = .781) and integrated risk management (M = 3.753, SD = .650), and the two measures were strongly associated (r = .892, p < .01). Six interview themes and five documentary themes converged around leadership, coordinated risk management, preparedness, student protection, digital safety, monitoring, and continuous improvement. The evidence supported a four-capability framework comprising leadership and policy coordination, integrated risk identification and assessment, monitoring and evaluation, and organisational learning and continuous improvement. The framework contributes a cyclical process model for coordinating multidomain safety practices. Because the data were cross-sectional and purposively sampled, the findings are associative and context-specific rather than causal or universally generalisable.

School safety governance; Risk assessment; Policy coordination; Monitoring and evaluation; Organisational learning; Ajman.

1. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Addison-Wesley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cvetković, V. M., Nikolić, N., & Lukić, T. (2024). Exploring students’ and teachers’ insights on school-based disaster risk reduction and safety: A case study of Western Morava Basin, Serbia. Safety, 10(2), Article 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety10020050 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector. (2022). Comprehensive School Safety Framework 2022–2030. UNESCO. https://gadrrres.net/files/cssf_2022-2030_en.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hoke, A. M., Keller, C. M., Grimm, C. L., Lehman, E. B., & Sekhar, D. L. (2024). Impact of wellness policy review, wellness council activity, and student health objectives on overall school wellness climate. Journal of School Health, 94(3), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13324 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2018). ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management — Guidelines. Geneva: ISO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). (2017). Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework. Geneva: IRGC. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. https://irgc.org/risk-governance/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Khanal, S., & Guha, P. (2023). Exploring the relationship between school-based management and school climate using PISA data. Asia Pacific Education Review, 24(4), 617–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-023-09846-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Luo, S., Wang, Q., & Qi, P. (2023). Identification and hierarchical analysis of risk factors in primary and secondary schools: A novel GT-DEMATEL-ISM approach. In E. C. K. Cheng, T. Wang, T. Schlippe, and G. N. Beligiannis (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education technologies: New development and innovative practices (Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, Vol. 154, pp. 20–33). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8040-4_2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Masekela, N. A., Ngobeni, E. T., & Sepeng, P. (2024). Implementation of school safety policy in primary and secondary schools. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 6(1), 11–31. https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2024.2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mtimkulu, M. N., & Kwatubana, S. (2023). The role of school leaders in developing teams: Sources and triggers in school health promotion. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 5(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2023.23 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Parlak, L., Kaya, N., Duru, P., & Örsal, Ö. (2023). Behaviors of a group of university students during an earthquake drill and their compliance with the emergency disaster plan: An action research. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 93, Article 103768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103768 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Pinheiro, G., & Alves, J. M. (2024). Educational teams: Building professional and organizational learning communities. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1446905. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1446905 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Ryberg, R., Her, S., Temkin, D., Rodriguez, Y., & Kelley, C. (2024). Associations between a technical assistance model to build school organizational capacity and improvements in student perceptions of school climate. American Journal of Community Psychology, 73(3–4), 490–503. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12732 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Sasaki, H., Sari, D. P., Warnaini, C., Andiwijaya, F. R., Takeuchi, R., Kadriyan, H., Shibuya, F., & Kobayashi, J. (2024). Leadership of school principals for school health implementation among primary schools in Mataram, Indonesia: A qualitative study. Tropical Medicine and Health, 52, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-023-00568-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Savolainen, T. (2023). A safe learning environment from the perspective of Laurea University of Applied Sciences safety, security and risk management students and staff. Heliyon, 9(3), e12836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12836 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. UNESCO. (2021). School Safety and Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. https://www.unesco.org/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. United Arab Emirates Ministry of Education. (2020). Ministerial Resolution No. (659) of 2020 on the Child Protection Policy in Educational Institutions. https://www.moe.gov.ae/en/about-us/legislations/Pages/child-protection-policy-educational-institutions-ministerial-resolution-659-2020.aspx [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Viano, S., Shahrokhi, F., & Hunter, S. B. (2024). Improvement science and school leadership: The precarious path to dynamic school improvement. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1371664. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1371664 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Walsh, K., Pink, E., Ayling, N., Sondergeld, A., Dallaston, E., Tournas, P., Serry, E., Trotter, S., Spanos, T., & Rogic, N. (2022). Best practice framework for online safety education: Results from a rapid review of the international literature, expert review, and stakeholder consultation. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 33, 100474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100474 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Wang, X., & Hu, X. (2023). Quantitative risk assessment of college campus considering risk interactions. Heliyon, 9(2), Article e13674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13674 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the Unexpected: Sustaining Performance in an Age of Uncertainty (3rd ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Zadok, A., Benoliel, P., & Schechter, C. (2024). Organizational resilience and transformational leadership for managing complex school systems. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1333551. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1333551 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study