BESRA Instructional Supervision Handbook: What Applies Now

The BESRA instructional supervision handbook, Instructional Supervision: Standards, Procedures and Tools, came from the Teacher Education and Development Technical Working Group of the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA). School head training materials still cite it as the BESRA Instructional Supervision Handbook (2010). Its central idea still holds: supervision supports each teacher toward independence, through a cycle of conference, observation and conference. Most of its rules and forms, however, have been replaced. As of November 5, 2026, teachers are observed, rated and coached under the Performance Management and Evaluation System (PMES) of DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025, and lesson plans are reviewed and coached under DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026.

The handbook carries no DepEd order or memorandum number, so it is a reference, not a rule. It was built on BESRA’s teacher standards and tools: the National Competency-Based Teacher Standards (NCBTS), the Teacher’s Strengths and Training Needs Assessment (TSNA), the Individual Plan for Professional Development (IPPD) and the Competency-Based Performance Appraisal System for Teachers (CB-PAST). DepEd has replaced each of these. For current practice in full, see the guide to instructional supervision and the guide to the PMES.

Key findings

• The handbook rests on BESRA standards that DepEd has replaced. NCBTS, TSNA and IPPD were adopted for all teachers in 2009 (DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2009, item 1). Teachers are now held to the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST) of DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2017 and rated under the PMES (DM 089, s. 2025).
• Its three approaches have no DepEd issuance of their own. Directive, collaborative and non-directive supervision are not named in current policy. DO 016, s. 2026 asks instructional leaders for “differentiated and targeted support” (item 20), and the Teacher Induction Program gives newly hired teachers differentiated supervision (DepEd Order No. 43, s. 2017, Sec. III).
• The observation cycle survives with new rules. The rated observation now covers the entire class period, not 40 minutes to an hour. Observers are discouraged from giving technical assistance on the lesson plan for the rated lesson, no portfolio is reviewed, and the post-observation conference comes within three days (DM 089, items 50, 52, 57 and 60).
• IS Forms 1 to 4 are not current DepEd forms. Rated observations use the Classroom Observation Tool (COT) and its rating sheet, inter-observer agreement form and observation notes form. Coaching and significant incidents go in the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Form (PMCF) (DM 089, item 96).
• Walkthroughs remain. The handbook’s 5- to 15-minute visits return as frequent, non-rated walkthroughs of about 10 to 15 minutes (DM 089, item 37; DO 016, s. 2026, item 33).
• Learning action cells replace study groups and SLAC sessions. LAC sessions “should be conducted at least once a month” (DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016, item 17.5) and are held within the Instructional Block (DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, item 22).
• Crisis rules are now written down. Rated observations may move online or to a LAC when school operations are disrupted. A school-wide change of schedule, allowed only after those modes are exhausted, needs the SDS’s approval (DM 089, items 47 and 48). DepEd Order No. 014, s. 2026 names the teacher competencies that matter at each level of disruption.

What the BESRA handbook is

BESRA was DepEd’s reform agenda of the late 2000s; the guide to the NCBS-SH and the PPSSH explains its reform thrusts. For teachers, DO 32, s. 2009 states that “the adoption of NCBTS-TSNA and IPPD is hereby directed for all teachers”, as part of BESRA’s second key reform thrust (item 1). The TSNA was a self-assessment against the NCBTS, and its results fed each teacher’s IPPD (items 3 to 5).

The handbook joins those tools to supervision. It defines instructional supervision as “a professional continuous and cooperative process for the improvement of instruction” (Introduction). It describes supervision’s history as a shift “from inspectorial to democratic, bureaucratic to participatory, and evaluative to supportive”. Its goal is the school as a professional learning community: supervision “should eventually lead to the establishment of Professional Learning Communities in every school”.

It has five parts:

1. Duties and responsibilities of instructional supervisors, in four areas: instructional support, teacher capability building, curricular enhancement, and assessment of learning outcomes.
2. Ten standards for instructional supervision, each with indicators.
3. Approaches and procedures: directive, collaborative and non-directive supervision, a three-phase supervisory program, and a step-by-step procedure for each approach.
4. Tools: Instructional Supervision Forms 1 to 4.
5. Support intervention strategies: job-embedded learning, study groups, action research, peer coaching, mentoring, conferencing and walkthroughs.

The handbook names two kinds of instructional leaders. Those outside the school are “the education supervisors and district supervisors”; those inside are the principal, department chairs, master teachers and teacher leaders. Many of its procedures picture a district or division supervisor visiting a school, with the school head joining the conferences and the observation. Under the PMES, most rating and coaching is done inside the school, by master teachers, department heads, assistant school heads and the school head (DM 089, item 91).

The handbook’s parts and what applies now

The ten standards for instructional supervision

The handbook states that “Instructional supervision is guided by ten standards with specific indicators”, linked to the NCBTS. No current DepEd issuance sets standards for supervision as such. Its ideas live on in the standards and orders that apply to school heads and teachers today.

For school heads, the standards that now apply are the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), adopted by DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020. Supervision falls mainly under strands 3.2 (teaching standards and pedagogies) and 3.3 (teacher performance feedback), and 4.4 (performance management) and 4.5 (professional development). For division supervisors, the Philippine Professional Standards for Supervisors include a strand on “Support for instructional leadership” (DepEd Order No. 025, s. 2020, strand 3.1).

Directive, collaborative and non-directive supervision

The handbook offers three approaches and matches each to a kind of teacher.

The handbook adds that the choice “shifts from one to the other according to need and the context of the teacher and the skill of the instructional leader”. Its Form 3 then ties the choice to a score, the Teacher Behavior Index (TBI):

The three approaches match Carl Glickman’s developmental supervision; the handbook quotes Glickman (1990) in its introduction.

What applies now. No DepEd issuance names the three approaches or ties an approach to a rating. DO 016, s. 2026 states the same idea in its own terms: “Instructional leadership shall likewise remain flexible, providing differentiated and targeted support that enables teachers and ALS implementers to achieve their professional goals” (item 20).

• A teacher handling new or unfamiliar content, learners or strategies may write a more detailed lesson plan, which helps the instructional leader see where support is needed (item 20.a).
• An experienced teacher may write a more concise plan, and the instructional leader may “serve as partners in reflection” (item 20.b).

For newly hired teachers, DO 43, s. 2017 defines differentiated supervision as supervision that recognizes their level of experience, teaching needs and goals (Sec. III).

The handbook’s trio can still serve as a way to think about support, since no text forbids it. Two cautions follow from current policy:

• No rule ties an approach to a score. DM 089 bases support on the IDP, the self-assessment and the gaps seen in rated observations (items 28, 30 and 37).
• Coaching stays separate from the rated observation. Walkthroughs are “non-rated, formative, and developmental” (DM 089, item 37), and the lesson planning rubric is used “only to support professional reflection and instructional improvement, and not as a compliance checklist or scoring tool for paperwork completion” (DO 016, s. 2026, item 9).

The SOIL model: structured, moderately structured and relatively unstructured supervision

Some training sessions pair the handbook with the Supervisory Options for Instructional Leaders (SOIL) model of Carrie Fritz and Greg Miller (2003). They built it from published supervision approaches, for instructional leaders in any educational setting. It is a United States research framework, not a DepEd one. SOIL sets supervisory approaches on a continuum of reward and risk. As a teacher gains readiness, the leader moves toward approaches the teacher directs.

The SOIL figure places clinical and conceptual supervision at the structured level, developmental and contextual supervision at the moderately structured level, and differentiated supervision at the relatively unstructured level (Fritz and Miller, 2003, reproduced in Stephens and Little, 2010, Figure 1). The developmental supervision that the handbook’s three approaches resemble thus sits in the middle. Stephens and Little, who applied the framework to 196 supervisors of student teachers in the United States, chose one model to represent each level:

The study found that supervisors most often used the moderately structured level, and that “The relatively unstructured level of supervision was virtually never utilized by supervisors of any subject areas.”

No DepEd issuance uses the SOIL levels. Lined up with what DepEd does prescribe, they compare this way:

• Structured. The PMES rated observation: a pre-observation conference, a full-period observation and a post-observation conference (DM 089, items 49 to 57).
• Moderately structured. Coaching adjusted to the teacher, as DO 016, s. 2026 asks.
• Relatively unstructured. Teacher-directed growth: the teacher’s own development goals in the e-SAT and IDP, and LAC work.

A school head who uses the model should treat it as a lens for choosing support, alongside these rules.

From Start Up, Build Up and Closure to the PMES cycle

The handbook’s supervisory program has three phases:

1. Start Up. The supervisor sets the purpose of the visit. It is either need-based, drawn from the TSNA and IPPD, or supply-based, drawn from DepEd issuances; and it is either a diagnostic or formative appraisal, a support intervention visit, a follow-up visit or a celebration of best practices. The school head, the district supervisor where applicable, and the teacher approve the visit.
2. Build Up. The support happens on site or online, in three steps: a pre-conference, the support activities, and a post-conference.
3. Closure and Move On. An exit conference, an evaluation, a celebration or showcase of the teacher’s work, and a hand-off to the school’s professional learning community.

The PMES has four phases a year (DM 089, item 7.b):

The handbook’s Start Up purpose now sits in the IS Plan. DM 089 has the rater prepare it from the teachers’ IDPs, with the schedule of full-period observations and the professional development planned for each teacher (items 27 to 30). DepEd’s template (Annex B) is a “Monthly Instructional Supervisory Plan”, prepared by the master teacher and approved by the school head. The handbook’s celebration has a small counterpart in the walkthrough debriefing, which is meant to “celebrate successes” (item 37.d), and Phase IV uses the final ratings for recognition (item 85).

The observation procedure, then and now

The handbook’s procedure for collaborative supervision has a pre-supervisory visit, the actual supervision and a post-observation supervision. The PMES keeps that cycle and changes most of its steps.

The biggest change is the second row. In the handbook’s collaborative procedure, the supervisor helps plan the lesson that will be observed. Under the PMES, that help belongs in coaching, walkthroughs and conferences before or after, not in the lesson that is rated. The guide to the PMES explains the observation protocol and the ratings in detail.

IS Forms 1 to 4 and what replaced them

Form 1, Pre-Observation Information. The teacher fills it out before the visit: the preferred date and class, and the NCBTS domain to be observed. The teacher also lists the teaching parameters to focus on (motivation, questioning, pacing, classroom management, time on task and others), the method to be used, the type and size of the class, three TSNA priority areas and the IPPD objectives. Now: no national form. The pre-observation conference reviews the COT rubric for the teacher’s career stage and the indicators scheduled for that observation (DM 089, item 49).

Form 2, Post-Observation Information. The teacher answers eleven questions after the visit. The questions cover what learners gained in knowledge, skills and attitudes; whether the objectives were met; what the teacher would change; what help is needed and from whom; and whether the teacher would welcome another visit. Now: no national form. The post-observation conference lets the teacher “reflect on his or her strengths and areas for improvement” (DM 089, item 57). For SY 2025-2026 only, a Reflection Journal covered indicators that were not observed (DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001, Annex A).

Forms 3A to 3C, Teacher Observation Guides. They are the CB-PAST formative appraisal tool, in seven parts rated from 0 (Not Observed) to 4 (Highly Proficient):

The weights are “Disregarded in formative appraisal”, and the mean score gives the TBI and the recommended approach. Now: the COT, built on the PPST. It has nine levels, and each career stage is rated on five of them: Levels 2 to 6 for Teachers I to III, 3 to 7 for Teachers IV to VII, 4 to 8 for Master Teachers I and II, and 5 to 9 for Master Teachers III to V (DM 089, item 11 and Annexes C and E-2; DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001, Sec. C). DM 089’s rubric table (item 44) prints Master Teachers I to III at Levels 4 to 8 and IV to V at 5 to 9. Its career-stage table, its tools and the March 2026 guidance all place Master Teacher III with the Distinguished stage, at Levels 5 to 9. The two tools treat an unseen item differently. In the handbook’s guides, “Not observed” scores 0. On the COT Rating Sheet, an indicator scheduled for the observation but marked NO (Not Observed) gets the lowest level of the teacher’s range, which converts to a PMES rating of 1.

Form 4, the STAR Observation Technique. A note-taking form with four rows:

• Situation: the context and the teaching episode.
• Task: the teacher’s actions in that situation.
• Action: the learners’ actions in response to the teacher’s task.
• Result: the outcome, both in numbers (the share of learners who could do the task) and in words.

Now: no DepEd equivalent. The COT Observation Notes Form is a blank page: “Write your observations on the teacher’s classroom performance on the space provided” (Annex E-4). Since the form prescribes no layout, an observer may still organize notes in STAR order. STAR’s habit of recording what learners did is useful there. For walkthroughs and coaching, the PMCF records the date, the significant incident, its impact on the job, the coaching used, the feedback and the progress to date (DM 089, Annex D).

Support intervention strategies, then and now

The handbook lists nine strategies and describes most of them in detail. The main ones still have a place, under current issuances.

The Teacher Induction Program deserves a closer look, because it is where the handbook’s ideas apply most directly today. It covers teachers who are newly hired, with zero to three years in the public school system (DO 43, s. 2017, Sec. II). In the first year, mentoring and differentiated supervision “must be employed at least twice in a quarter”, with one formal classroom observation each quarter (Sec. V.B). The school head “Serves also as mentor in the school” (Sec. V.D). DO 43 counts in quarters, while the school year has run in three terms since SY 2026-2027 (DO 009, s. 2026). The guide to instructional supervision gives the full three-year schedule and what to do about the terms.

Supervision in blended, online and crisis settings

The handbook allows the Build Up phase to happen online “if facility is available” and both parties agree. Current rules go further.

• Rated observations. The default is in person. When national or local pronouncements affect school operations, DM 089 allows online synchronous observation, online asynchronous observation, or observation through a LAC (item 48). A school may deviate from the observation timeline because of calamities, disasters or lockdowns, but only after the alternative modes in item 48 have been exhausted; the SDS approves the adjusted schedule (item 47). Rescheduling an individual teacher’s observation for a calamity, pregnancy, illness or a similar case needs the approving authority’s approval (item 92).
• Teaching during emergencies. DO 014, s. 2026 sets four levels of learning continuity: Hayo (continue), Hinay (ease in), Hinga (check in) and Hinto (stop). For each it names the critical teacher competencies, from all PPST competencies under Hayo to learner safety and security, learners in difficult circumstances, and school policies and procedures under Hinto. School heads must make sure that teachers know the learning experiences planned for each level in the school’s continuity plan (item 34). The guide to instructional supervision gives the full table.
• The 2026-2027 El Niño. DepEd Memorandum No. 064, s. 2026 applies DO 014 to the El Niño of 2026-2027. It directs: “School heads shall activate LACs and professional learning networks to reorient teachers on scenario-based learning management, flexible instructional delivery, quick learning checks or rapid formative assessment techniques, and teacher mental health and psychosocial well-being” (Encl., Sec. 5.2.4). It stays in effect until PAGASA’s final advisory on the end of the El Niño (item 7).
• Induction. The Teacher Induction Program may run “face-to-face, online, blended learning, and other related modalities” (DO 43, s. 2017, Sec. IV).

During a disruption, a school head’s walkthroughs and coaching can follow the competencies DO 014 names for that level. A rated observation moves online or to a LAC first (DM 089, item 48); only when those modes are exhausted may the school ask the SDS to adjust the schedule (item 47). DO 014 does not address observations; this follows from DM 089.

Who supervises now

The handbook’s division of external and internal instructional leaders still fits, under new names and rules.

• In the school. DO 016, s. 2026 defines instructional leaders as “School Heads, Head Teachers, Master Teachers, ALS Focals, Education Program Supervisors for ALS, and other personnel designated to perform instructional leadership functions”, including grade level coordinators, learning area coordinators and department heads (item 4.d). DM 089 sets who rates whom: master teachers, department heads or assistant school heads rate most teachers, and the school head approves; the school head rates master teachers and teachers in schools without those raters (item 91).
• In the division. The Curriculum Implementation Division provides technical assistance to schools on curriculum implementation and “instructional supervision”, and includes the District Instructional Supervision unit (DepEd Order No. 52, s. 2015, functions of the Curriculum Implementation Division). Under DO 016, s. 2026, the SDO orients and trains school staff in formative coaching and mentoring, and its Curriculum Implementation Division and the School Governance and Operations Division’s Human Resource Development Section give technical support on lesson planning (item 36).
• In the region. The Curriculum and Learning Management Division, the Human Resource Development Division and NEAP in the region train division supervisors “to mentor instructional leaders effectively” (DO 016, s. 2026, item 35).

What this means for school heads

1. Use the handbook for ideas, not forms. Its definition of supervision, its walkthroughs, its peer coaching and its aim of a professional learning community still serve a school. Its forms, its 0-to-4 scale, its portfolio review and its TSNA and IPPD steps do not belong in the current cycle.
2. Build the IS Plan in Phase I. Use each teacher’s IDP and e-SAT results, set the dates of both rated observations, and plan the support. Use DepEd’s monthly template (Annex B) for the record, and keep a year view of each teacher’s focus. The guide to instructional supervision has an example.
3. Keep coaching and rating apart. Coach in walkthroughs, LAC sessions and conferences. In the rated observation, follow the protocol and rate only from the notes.
4. Match support to the teacher. Give more structure to newly hired teachers and to teachers with new content, and more room to teachers who direct their own growth (DO 016, s. 2026, item 20). Decide from evidence, observation results included, and from the teacher’s goals; no rule sets the approach from a score.
5. Run the Teacher Induction Program. Mentor new teachers yourself and see that their TIP mentors work with them regularly. Keep DO 43’s first-year totals, four formal observations and at least eight rounds of mentoring and differentiated supervision, spread across the three terms (DO 43, s. 2017, Sec. V.B).
6. Record what you do. Write walkthroughs, significant incidents and coaching in the PMCF, so the year-end rating rests on a record, not memory.
7. Plan for disruption. Know DM 089’s alternative modes and rescheduling rules, and the DO 014, s. 2026 competencies for each level.
8. Check for new rules. DO 016, s. 2026 refers to “succeeding issuances on instructional leadership and supervision” (item 4.d). As of November 5, 2026, DepEd had issued none. A separate issuance on the PMES from SY 2026-2027 was also pending (DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001).

This work serves PPSSH strands 3.2 and 3.3 in Domain 3 and strands 4.4 and 4.5 in Domain 4. The guide to DO 016, s. 2026 covers lesson plan review, and the guide to learning action cells covers LAC planning.

How the NASH may test this

The items below are original practice items, scored 3 (Relational), 2 (Multistructural), 1 (Unistructural) or 0 (Prestructural). An option that breaks a rule scores 0.

Question 1

Indicator 4.4.2, Performance management. Career Stage 2, Situational, Difficult.

You are the school head of a large elementary school with three master teachers who rate the teachers. At the start of the school year, the master teachers propose to bring back the forms from an old supervision handbook used in their training. These are a pre-observation form the teacher fills out, a 0-to-4 observation guide whose average sets the supervisory approach, and a review of each teacher’s portfolio during the rated observation. What is the most appropriate action?

• A. Adopt the current observation tool for the rated observations, and leave each master teacher to choose a separate coaching approach for the teachers they rate.
• B. Agree with the master teachers on rating with the current observation tool, and on using pre- and post-conferences, without the old forms, in non-rated coaching.
• C. Approve the old forms for this year’s rated observations, and ask every teacher to submit a portfolio so the master teachers can rate them the way they did before.
• D. Ask the division office for copies of the current rating forms, and defer the master teachers’ proposal until the division holds its next orientation on the system.

Answer and explanation

Best answer: B. Points: A = 2, B = 3, C = 0, D = 1.

• A (2 points, Multistructural). It puts the current tool in the rated observations, but it leaves coaching to each rater alone, so the three raters work without a shared approach.
• B (3 points, Relational). It agrees on one approach with the team of raters, rates with the current tool, drops the old forms, and keeps the conferences where they belong, in non-rated coaching.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). It breaks the current rules: ratings come from the COT and the observation notes, and no portfolio for performance assessment may be collected.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Getting the current forms is right, but deferring the decision leaves the raters without agreed tools as the cycle begins.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 4.4.2 asks the school head to implement the performance management system with a team. DM 089, s. 2025 lists the COT and the PMCF as the tools (item 96), bases ratings on the observation notes (item 55), and states that “No portfolio for performance assessments shall be collected” (item 60). The 2-point option uses the right rating tool but leaves coaching without the shared approach a team of raters needs.

Indicator 4.4.2: Implement the performance management system with a team to support the career advancement of school personnel, and to improve office performance.

Sources: DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025, items 55, 60 and 96; BESRA, Instructional Supervision: Standards, Procedures and Tools.

Question 2

Indicator 3.2.1, Teaching standards and pedagogies. Career Stage 1, Conceptual, Moderate.

An older supervision handbook recommends directive supervision for beginning or struggling teachers, collaborative supervision for teachers building a learning community, and non-directive supervision for self-directed teachers. Which statement best explains how current DepEd policy treats this idea?

• A. The idea survives as differentiated support, with the approach for each teacher set by the score the teacher received in the last rated observation.
• B. The idea survives for newly hired teachers, who receive differentiated supervision during their induction, while other teachers receive the same support.
• C. The idea survives as differentiated, targeted support, with the approach chosen from each teacher’s needs, experience and goals, not a rating score.
• D. The idea no longer applies, since supervision now consists of the two rated classroom observations that every teacher receives during the year.

Answer and explanation

Best answer: C. Points: A = 2, B = 1, C = 3, D = 0.

• A (2 points, Multistructural). It sees that support is still differentiated, but it ties the approach to a rating score, as the old handbook did, which current policy does not do.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Newly hired teachers do receive differentiated supervision, but current policy asks for differentiated support for all teachers.
• C (3 points, Relational). It links differentiation to its basis in each teacher’s needs, experience and goals, rather than to a score, while ratings still inform coaching.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). It mistakes the rated observations for all of supervision; walkthroughs, coaching and mentoring continue throughout the year.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.2.1 asks for an understanding of how school heads give technical assistance to teachers. DO 016, s. 2026 asks for “differentiated and targeted support” and lets plans and support vary with the teacher’s experience (item 20). DM 089, s. 2025 makes walkthroughs “non-rated, formative, and developmental” (item 37). The 2-point option keeps the differentiation but bases it on a score.

Indicator 3.2.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of teaching standards and pedagogies within and across learning areas to provide technical assistance to teachers to improve their teaching practice.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, items 9 and 20; DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025, item 37; DepEd Order No. 43, s. 2017, Sec. III.

Nothing in this guide reproduces or predicts examination content.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BESRA instructional supervision handbook?

It is Instructional Supervision: Standards, Procedures and Tools, prepared by the Teacher Education and Development Technical Working Group of the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda. It sets ten standards for supervision, three approaches, a three-phase supervisory program, Instructional Supervision Forms 1 to 4 and a set of support strategies. It carries no DepEd order or memorandum number, and its standards and forms have been replaced by the PPST and the PMES.

Are Instructional Supervision Forms 1 to 4 still used in DepEd?

Not as DepEd forms. Rated observations use the Classroom Observation Tool, with its rating sheet, inter-observer agreement form and observation notes form, and coaching is recorded in the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Form (DM 089, s. 2025, item 96). A school may still use the old forms’ questions as coaching prompts, but not as rating tools.

What is the STAR observation technique?

STAR is Form 4 of the BESRA handbook. The observer records the Situation, the teacher’s Task, the learners’ Action and the Result in numbers and in words. DepEd’s current observation notes form prescribes no layout, so an observer may still organize notes this way.

What are the three approaches to instructional supervision?

The BESRA handbook names directive supervision for beginning or struggling teachers, collaborative supervision for teachers building a learning community, and non-directive supervision for self-directed teachers. Current DepEd policy does not name them; DO 016, s. 2026 asks instructional leaders for “differentiated and targeted support” matched to each teacher (item 20).

What is the SOIL model of supervision?

The Supervisory Options for Instructional Leaders model of Fritz and Miller (2003) sorts supervision into three levels: structured (clinical and conceptual supervision), moderately structured (developmental and contextual supervision) and relatively unstructured (differentiated supervision). The leader moves toward teacher-directed options as the teacher’s readiness grows. It is a research framework from the United States, not a DepEd rule.

Sources

DepEd issuances:

• DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025, Guidelines on the Multi-Year Performance Management and Evaluation System for Teachers from School Years 2025-2026 to 2027-2028, October 1, 2025. Items 7, 11, 25 to 30, 37, 44 to 58, 60, 64, 85, 91, 92 and 96; Annexes B, C, D, E-2 and E-4.
• Memorandum DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001, Guidance in the Implementation of the Performance Management and Evaluation System (PMES) for Teachers for SY 2025-2026, March 3, 2026. Secs. A and C; Annex A.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 064, s. 2026, Anticipatory Action, Preparedness, and Protective Measures for the 2026-2027 Super El Niño, October 26, 2026. Item 7; Encl., Sec. 5.2.4.
• DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, Guidelines on Lesson Planning and Learning Design, June 4, 2026. Items 4, 5, 7, 9, 20, 26, 33, 35 and 36; Sec. V.D.
• DepEd Order No. 014, s. 2026, Guidelines on Learning Continuity in Emergencies, June 4, 2026. Sec. V.A and V.E, item 34.
• DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Three-Term School Calendar in Basic Education, April 16, 2026. Items 21 and 22.
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads, September 7, 2020.
• DepEd Order No. 025, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for Supervisors, September 7, 2020. Strand 3.1.
• DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2017, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers, August 11, 2017.
• DepEd Order No. 43, s. 2017, Teacher Induction Program Policy, August 11, 2017. Secs. II to V.
• DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016, The Learning Action Cell as a K to 12 Basic Education Program School-Based Continuing Professional Development Strategy for the Improvement of Teaching and Learning, June 7, 2016. Items 9 and 17.5.
• DepEd Order No. 52, s. 2015, New Organizational Structures of the Central, Regional, and Schools Division Offices of the Department of Education, October 30, 2015. Functions of the Curriculum Implementation Division.
• DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017, Research Management Guidelines.
• DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2009, National Adoption and Implementation of NCBTS-TSNA and IPPD for Teachers, and Integration of Its System Operations in the Overall Program for Continuing Teacher Capacity Building, April 7, 2009. Items 1 to 5.

Other documents and research:

• Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda, Teacher Education and Development Technical Working Group. Instructional Supervision: Standards, Procedures and Tools. Cited in school head training materials as the BESRA Instructional Supervision Handbook (2010).
• Fritz, C. A., and Miller, G. (2003). Supervisory options for instructional leaders in education. Journal of Leadership Education, 2(2), 13-27.
• Stephens, C. A., and Little, D. (2010). The application of Supervisory Options for Instructional Leaders framework within the fields of agriculture, science, math and English education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 51(3), 32-43.
• Glickman, C. D. (1990). Supervision of Instruction: A Developmental Approach (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: the BESRA handbook Instructional Supervision: Standards, Procedures and Tools; DepEd Memoranda No. 089, s. 2025 (with its PMES tools) and No. 064, s. 2026; Memorandum DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001; DepEd Orders No. 014, No. 016 and No. 009, s. 2026, No. 024 and No. 025, s. 2020, No. 42 and No. 43, s. 2017, No. 35, s. 2016, No. 16, s. 2017, No. 52, s. 2015, and No. 32, s. 2009; Fritz and Miller (2003); Stephens and Little (2010).