Child-Friendly School Survey and the CFSS in DepEd

The Child-Friendly School Survey is the self-assessment in Annex 2A of the School Improvement Plan (SIP) Guidebook enclosed with DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, and its result is item 12 of every public school’s School Report Card (SRC). The survey comes from the Child-Friendly School System (CFSS), a program of UNICEF and the Department of Education (DepEd) introduced in 1999. Below are the survey’s seven goals and six targets, a scored worked example, and how to report the result and act on it through the SIP, learning action cell (LAC) sessions and the school’s partners.

It is written for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH), for new school heads, and for teachers-in-charge who will lead the survey for the first time. The Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), adopted through DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, expects a Career Stage 1 school head to “Demonstrate understanding of managing a learner-friendly, inclusive and healthy learning environment” (indicator 3.6.1). The survey also draws on strand 5.3, inclusive practice, and strand 1.6, learner voice.

Key points

• The survey is Annex 2A of DO 44, s. 2015, and its result is SRC item 12. The guidebook calls it “required information in the SRC”.
• It scores 62 action items under 7 goals, plus 6 outcome targets, out of 39 points. A school needs 25 points to be a “Child-Friendly School”, 30 for “Outstanding” and 35 for “Very Outstanding”.
• “CFSS” means two things in the same guidebook. It abbreviates both the Child-Friendly School Survey and the Child-Friendly School System behind it.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 73, s. 2006 announced an event, not a policy. It called officials to a March 2006 launch of the CFSS in high schools. It sets no standards for schools.
• “Child-friendly” is in DepEd’s mission and in current orders. DepEd Order No. 006, s. 2026 commits DepEd to learners’ welfare and safety “through child-friendly, gender-sensitive, safe, and motivating environment”, and makes schools division offices “Responsible for child-friendly schools”.
• A tick list shows what is missing, not why. Feed the unchecked items into the SIP’s gap analysis and root cause analysis, then route each gap to a project, a LAC session, a partner or the division.
• Parts of the 2015 survey and its companion checklist have aged. The anti-bullying checklist in Annex 2B cites a repealed order, and the survey’s lesson plan and test items predate current rules.

What is a child-friendly school?

Annex 2A opens with a definition. A child-friendly school “is more than just a place for formal learning. Foremost, it is an institution that recognizes and respects the range of rights of children, and not just their right to be educated.” Those rights include the rights “to be healthy, to be given opportunities for play and leisure, to be protected from harm and abuse, to express their views freely, and to participate in decision-making according to their evolving capacities.”

The annex lists five traits. A child-friendly school is “inclusive, gender-sensitive, and non-discriminating”; “effective with children”; “healthy for children”; “caring and protective of all children”, which includes that it “does not tolerate physical punishment on children” and “does not allow bullying”; and it “involves children’s families and the community”. From the traits come seven goals that a child-friendly school “should aspire for”, and the checklist turns each goal into action items.

UNICEF’s model behind it

The guidebook thanks UNICEF for “extending its expertise and resources during the development of this Guidebook”. UNICEF’s Child Friendly Schools Manual (2009) sets out the model. It says child-friendly schools “embrace a multidimensional concept of quality and address the total needs of the child as a learner” (Introduction, p. 4), and that the concept “as introduced in the 1990s was inspired by the principles of child rights” in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (ch. 2, p. 8).

It draws three key principles from the Convention. Inclusiveness: a child-friendly school is “not just a child-welcoming school but also a child-seeking school” (ch. 2, p. 9), which the survey’s Goal 4 turns into a master list of school-age children. Democratic participation: children, parents, communities and others “have a role in determining the structure, content and process of education” (ch. 2, p. 10), as in Goals 1 and 7. Child-centeredness: “perhaps the most important principle generated from the CRC” (ch. 2, p. 12), as in Goal 5.

The manual is a 2009 framework, and as of October 2026 UNICEF has published no later edition. Read it as background, not as DepEd policy.

Philippine cases in the manual

The manual reports that child-friendly schools in the Philippines “have succeeded in transforming the norm in classroom discipline from one that condones verbal and physical abuse to one that calls for a ‘shoutless and stickless’ form of discipline”, and that “a school protocol was developed for identification, reporting and referral of cases of abuse, violence and exploitation. This was approved for all schools by the Department of Education” (ch. 2, pp. 19–20). These are short case reports, not evaluations.

The Child-Friendly School System in the Philippines: a short history

DepEd’s records give the outline.

The high school roll-out was tied to keeping learners in school, and by 2011 a DepEd training covered folding CFSS activities into school improvement plans, which is where DO 44, s. 2015 put the survey.

What DM 73, s. 2006 says, and what it does not

DepEd Memorandum No. 73, s. 2006, “Child-Friendly School System (CFSS) at the Elementary and Secondary Levels”, is dated 28 February 2006 and signed by the Undersecretary and Officer-in-Charge. Its two pages of text are followed by a three-page list of participants. It announces that UNICEF, with the Bureaus of Secondary and Elementary Education, will hold a program in Mandaluyong City on 6–7 March 2006 with three parts: the “Launch of the CFSS at the Secondary Level”; the “Presentation of the Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) Results of the CFSS - Elementary Schools”; and the approved 2006 work and financial plan.

The program aims, among other things, to “draw on the results of the M & E at the elementary level to improve the implementation of the CFSS at the secondary level”. Its participants include 24 superintendents in the “CPC-6 areas”, the areas of UNICEF’s Sixth Country Program for Children (CPC-VI, as DM 192, s. 2005 spells it out), and the principals of the “8 CFSS - Secondary Pilot Schools”. Superintendents were to bring a list of three high schools “having the highest drop-out rates” for SY 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 and to designate a Division CFSS Coordinator. Travel and lodging were charged against UNICEF funds.

That is all it does. DM 73, s. 2006 is an event memorandum: it defines no standards and gives schools no lasting duties. Cite it as the record that the CFSS ran in elementary schools before 2006 and reached high schools in 2005-2006, not as a source of what schools must do.

Where “child-friendly” sits in DepEd policy today

As a named project, the CFSS has faded: as of October 2026, the latest DepEd issuance with the CFSS in its title is DM 86, s. 2011. The idea, though, is written into orders in force.

Two of these overlap with the survey most. The SBM Learning Environment indicators ask about the same conditions, so one set of evidence can serve both; the revised SBM guide explains them. And the RA 9155 guide shows the duty in law: area 2 of Section 7(E) of Republic Act No. 9155, “Creating an environment within the school that is conducive to teaching and learning”.

CFSS: the system and the survey

The guidebook’s list of acronyms defines “CFSS” as “Child-Friendly School Survey”, and the DO 44 guidelines say “the Child-friendly School Survey (CFSS)”. Yet Annex 11 uses the same letters for the Child-Friendly School System, and also calls the tool a “Child-Friendly School Self-Assessment”. When a division memorandum says “CFSS”, check which it means. In this guide, “CFSS” is the system and “the survey” is Annex 2A.

The Child-Friendly School Survey, part by part

Annex 2A is on pages 65 to 76 of the PDF of DO 44, s. 2015 on DepEd’s website. The school ticks each action item it has “accomplished or are doing on a regular basis”, counts the ticks per goal, colors a heart for each goal, and rates six targets. This guide quotes samples only; download the order for the full checklist.

The goals are uneven. Goal 3 alone has 17 items, more than a quarter of the list, and mixes facilities (ventilation, desks, lawns) with policies (anti-discrimination, special needs, discipline). Goal 4 has four items, all about finding children and keeping them in school.

After the goals, the survey rates six “desired outcomes for children”, which it calls targets, adding that “The ideal, of course, is to aim for universal coverage or 100% attainment”. Each is rated Poor (0 points), Fair (1), Good (2) or Outstanding (3).

The survey does not say how to compute these percentages. Our suggestion: use the Child Mapping Tool (Annex 1B of the same guidebook) for target 1, cohort records for target 2, the exit assessment with a written pass mark for target 3, and the nutritional status report and the annual health and dental examinations, which are Goal 2 items, for targets 4 to 6.

How to score the Child-Friendly School Survey

Step 1: color a heart for each goal

A blue heart is worth 1 point, a purple heart 2, a red heart 3 and an uncolored heart 0. Without crayons, the survey says, you “can just mark the inside of the heart with a B for Blue, P for Purple, or R for Red”.

The bands are not proportional. A blue heart needs half the items in Goals 4 and 6 but three-quarters or more in Goals 5 and 7. A red heart needs every item in five goals; only Goals 2 and 3 allow a miss. Hearts give at most 21 points.

Step 2: rate the six targets

Give each target 0 to 3 points by its band, for at most 18 points.

Step 3: add them and read the status

The total is out of 39. The survey’s last page reads:

“If you got a total of at least 25 points but lower than 30 points, you are a CHILD-FRIENDLY SCHOOL!

If you got at least 30 points but lower that 35 points, you are an OUTSTANDING CHILD-FRIENDLY SCHOOL!!

If you got 35 points or higher, you are indeed a VERY OUTSTANDING CHILD-FRIENDLY SCHOOL!!!”

Below 25 there is no label; the survey says “you can try to do better next school year”. The arithmetic matters. Because hearts give at most 21, no school reaches 25 on action items alone; it needs at least 4 points from outcomes. Purple hearts in all seven goals (14) and “Good” on all six targets (12) make 26, just past the line.

A worked example

This is our own example, not from the guidebook: a public elementary school of about 600 learners.

Six of the seven goals here are one ticked item from the next heart; only Goal 2 is not. Six more ticks would reach 25. That is the trap: chasing the cheapest ticks raises the score without asking which gaps matter most. In this school, 30% of learners lack good dental health and 40% did not pass the exit assessment. Those outcomes, not the nearest heart, should drive the planning.

One gap in the printed survey can confuse a first-time user: the target bands skip fractions, so 96.5% fits no band. Our suggestion is to round to the nearest whole percent and write the rule down.

Who answers the survey, and when

The guidebook is brief:

• Who. Annex 11 says the survey is “to be accomplished by the School Planning Team”, the School-Community Planning Team (SPT), which includes a student, a parent and a member of the Child Protection Committee, as the SIP guide explains.
• When. It is an output of Step 1 and “should be accomplished during the preparatory phase of the SIP process”. Annex 11 gives “Year-end” as the reporting period for item 12.
• How often. “Now make sure that you do this every school year”.
• Honestly. “Remember though that you have to be honest with your answers!”

The timing rules fit together. In the first year of a SIP cycle, the survey is part of the data gathered before priorities are set. In later years, answering it near year-end puts the result in the year-end SRC and gives the team current data when it returns to Step 2 for the next Annual Implementation Plan (AIP).

The guidebook says no more. These practices are our suggestions:

1. Tick only what is in place now. Plans and one-time events do not count.
2. Keep a one-page evidence log: the item, the evidence (a record, a photo, an observation) and who checked it.
3. Ask learners. Items such as “Your teachers use non-threatening styles of discipline” are best answered by learners. The student representative and the learner government can run a short check with classmates, which is what PPSSH indicator 1.6.1 on learner voice describes.
4. Answer the same way every year. Keep the evidence rules, rounding rule and target data sources in one file, so that a change in the score reflects a change in the school.
5. Gather evidence once. The SBM Learning Environment indicators, the child protection checklist and the survey ask about the same things.

Reporting the result: SRC item 12

The SRC has 19 items, and the survey result is item 12, under “Performance Indicators: Governance”. Annex 11 asks for the “Points and status”, based on the “CFSS point system”, and marks item 12 “Data not found in the EBEIS”, so the school produces the figure itself. Both SRC templates (Annexes 12A and 12B) show a sample: “CFSS Points: 33” and “Qualitative Interpretation: Outstanding”.

Three rules in the DO 44 guidelines govern its use:

• The SRC is presented at least twice a year. It “shall be presented twice: during the mid-year (October) and year-end (March) general assemblies”. The months follow the 2015 calendar; use your division’s dates. Item 12 is a year-end item.
• The year-end SRC goes to the division each year, “to provide the SDO a summary of the progress of project implementation and the status of the school”.
• The SRC is not an accountability tool. It “is not for planning and accountability; it is a communication and advocacy tool”, and “the SRC itself shall not be used as basis for the PBB”, the Performance-Based Bonus. The score is not meant to rank or reward schools, so report it as it is.

The guidelines have the SRC signed by the School Head, the PTA President, the Student Body President, the Teacher Representatives or Teacher Club President, “and the School Governing Council Chair to ensure its ownership and accuracy”. The guidebook’s own steps list four signatories, without the SGC Chair; the guidelines’ fuller list is the one to follow. A padded survey score puts every signatory behind a false figure.

Write the interpretation as the SIP guide recommends for every SRC chart: a few plain sentences in the language parents use. For the worked example: “Our school scored 19 of 39 points, below the 25 points of a child-friendly school. We do well on enrollment and learners’ health, but 3 in 10 learners do not have good dental health, and we have no literacy program for parents. We ask the barangay health center and parents to help.” The SGC can then share it, as DO 026, s. 2022 provides; the School Governance Council, PTA and partners guide covers the council’s other roles.

From score to action: using the survey in the SIP

Read the unchecked items, not the total

The total says whether the school crossed 25. The unchecked items, with the targets rated Poor or Fair, say what to work on. That list feeds Step 2 of the SIP, the gap analysis, where the planning team rates improvement areas on strategic importance, urgency, magnitude and feasibility; the SIP guide explains the rubric.

UNICEF’s manual warns about tick lists: “Checklists often provide answers to the ‘what’, ‘how many’ or ‘how often’ questions, whereas the key ‘why’ questions that explain causality may require more open-ended approaches. ‘Yes or no’ questions are of limited use because they do not measure progress” (ch. 8, p. 15). An unchecked “Your teachers use non-threatening styles of discipline” says there is a problem, not whether the cause is crowded classes, untrained new teachers or a culture that rewards strictness. Finding out is the project team’s work in Step 3: listening to learners, observing the process, and finding the root cause, as the root cause analysis guide shows.

In the worked example, the team might weigh dental health (Target 6, Poor), exit assessment results (Target 3, Fair, and strategic because reading and mathematics affect every subject) and community support (Goal 7, no heart). Two might become priority improvement areas and the third might go to a partner. One easy tick that turns a blue heart purple should not displace them.

Route each gap to the right response

Not every gap needs a SIP project. The routing below is ours; the issuances are DepEd’s.

LAC sessions. DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016 lets teachers set LAC topics “through needs assessment”, and its paragraph 16 says sessions should discuss “school data such as school participation, attendance, completion and assessment, child-finding activities”. The survey supplies that data. The LAC guide has a table of possible LAC topics for each survey goal. DO 44, s. 2015 adds that “activities of LACs should be aligned to the SIP or AIP”.

Child protection. Annex 2B, after the survey, is the “School-Based Child Protection/Anti-Bullying Policy Implementation Checklist”: 20 items rated Present or Absent. Answer it at the same sitting, but read it against the current rules in the child protection guide.

Facilities and inclusion. Goal 2’s water and toilet items can be checked against the school’s figures in the WASH data report. For the one-line item on “a program for children with special needs”, see the guide to DepEd’s ALS, inclusive education and special programs.

What has aged in the 2015 survey

DO 44, s. 2015 is still in force, and no later order has revised the survey. Keep its text when you answer it, because the score bands depend on the item counts, but read these items against current rules.

The SIP guide covers what has aged in the guidebook as a whole, and the app’s policy review, Is the School Improvement Plan working?, covers how plans are used in practice.

The school head’s role in a child-friendly school

UNICEF’s manual, in section 6.3, “School head as leader and mentor”, says: “In child-friendly schools, the heads are custodians of change and managers of innovation. They lead the school planning process, secure necessary resources, facilitate essential training for teachers and build constructive links with the local community” (ch. 6, p. 14). Its leadership guidelines add that “School heads need to adopt a democratic style of authority to win the support and commitment of teachers, pupils and the local community” (ch. 6, p. 16).

DepEd’s current assignment is in DO 006, s. 2026. Section IX.D lists 14 duties for schools, which it calls “Implementers of child protection and empowerment”, among them to “Strengthen positive discipline, avoiding corporal or punitive actions”, “Capacitate personnel through LAC and INSET sessions”, “Engage learner governments and school organizations to lead protection campaigns” and “Empower the School Governance Council and Child Protection Committee”. Section IX.C makes the schools division office “Responsible for child-friendly schools and CLCs” and has its School Governance and Operations Division “Facilitate LRP discussions through In-Service Training (INSET)/ Learning Action Cell (LAC) sessions”. LRP stands for learner rights protection: concerns such as bullying and gender-based violence. When a gap needs training or resources the school lacks, ask the SDO.

The Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II) shows why it matters. Its final report says that in SEA-PLM 2024 “half of Grade 5 learners (50%) report being bullied at least once a month” (printed p. 25), but the SEA-PLM figure it reproduces comes from head teachers: the Philippine figure for head teachers reporting bullying among pupils at least once a month was 50% (printed p. 197; SEA-PLM 2024 Main Regional Report, pp. 117 and 119). At one school, Batino Elementary School, the Commission found that “LAC sessions focus more on classroom management improvisations than systematic socioemotional learning” (printed p. 172). That is a single school’s case, not a national finding. The Commission’s general recommendation is that “NEAP and school LAC sessions should integrate practical modules on de-escalation, class meetings, peer mediation, and supportive homeroom guidance” (printed p. 201). The EDCOM II final report guide summarizes its other findings.

What the school head does: an annual cycle

The steps follow DO 44, s. 2015 and the orders above; the order and timing are our suggestion.

1. Toward year-end, convene the planning team. Assign each goal to two or three members, including the student and parent representatives, and agree on evidence rules and target data sources.
2. Gather the target data: child mapping, cohort records, assessment results, and nutrition, health and dental records.
3. Answer the survey honestly with an evidence log. Use the same evidence for the SBM self-assessment, which DO 007, s. 2024 places near the end of the school year (“ideally done during the fourth grading period” of the old four-quarter calendar). Under the three-term calendar of DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, follow your SDO’s schedule.
4. Answer the child protection checklist at the same sitting, against the revised Anti-Bullying IRR and DO 006, s. 2026.
5. Report item 12 in the year-end SRC with a plain interpretation, present it at the assembly, send the SRC to the SDO, and give the result to the SGC to share.
6. Bring the unchecked items to SIP Step 2, rate them with the PIA rubric, and choose what matters most for learners.
7. Have project teams find root causes by listening to learners and parents and observing the process.
8. Route the rest: teaching and discipline gaps to LAC sessions, facility and health gaps to partners and the LGU, and needs beyond the school’s means to the SDO.
9. Check progress at midyear and report it in the midyear SRC.
10. Repeat the survey next year by the same rules, and compare goal by goal.

Child-friendly schools and the PPSSH: strands and Career Stage 1 indicators

The PPSSH has no strand called child-friendly schools; the survey draws on several. The table gives the Career Stage 1 indicators in the words of DO 024, s. 2020.

The PPSSH guide lists every indicator at all four career stages. The domain guides read strands 3.6 and 5.3 with DepEd data: Domain 3, Teaching and Learning and Domain 5, Building Connections.

Practice: how the NASH may test this

DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025 says the NASH covers “conceptual and situational critical thinking questions aligned with” the PPSSH, using the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy. On this topic, expect situational items on honest reporting, choosing priorities from evidence, and turning a finding into action. The three items below are original practice items, not actual or recalled NASH items. Each option is scored 3-2-1-0, as in the NASH practice questions with answers. Timed sets are on the NASH Reviewer assessment page.

Question 1

Indicator 1.7.1, Monitoring and evaluation processes and tools. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

You are the school head of a public elementary school. Your planning team totals the Child-Friendly School Survey at 24 points, one short of “Child-Friendly School” status. A teacher notes that the school will start a parent literacy program and a feeding program next month. She proposes ticking both items now so that the year-end School Report Card can show the status. What should you do?

• A. Tick the two items now, since both programs will be running before the year-end assembly and the school has already set aside funds for them.
• B. Report 24 points without a status, explain which goals fell short and why, and bring the unchecked items to the planning team’s next priority review.
• C. Report the other School Report Card items as usual but leave out item 12 this year, so that parents are not discouraged by a score below 25.
• D. Report 24 points without a status, and ask the teachers to complete enough unchecked items before next year’s survey to move the school past 25.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). The survey counts items “accomplished or are doing on a regular basis”. Ticking planned programs reports something not yet true, in a report whose signatories certify its accuracy.
• B (3 points, Relational). This reports the result honestly, explains it, and links the gaps to planning, which is what a monitoring tool is for.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Avoiding a false figure is right, but item 12 is a required SRC item, and hiding it defeats the SRC’s purpose.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). The report is honest, but the follow-up aims at the score rather than at the gaps that matter most to learners.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.7.1 asks for an understanding of monitoring tools used to promote learner achievement. Annex 2A tells schools, “you have to be honest with your answers”. DO 44, s. 2015 says the SRC “is not for planning and accountability” and “shall not be used as basis for the PBB”, so the survey is not meant to rank or reward schools. The option that reports honestly but sets out to collect ticks treats the survey as a target instead of a diagnosis.

Indicator 1.7.1: Display knowledge and understanding of monitoring and evaluation processes and tools to promote learner achievement.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, Guidelines Sec. V.B and SIP Guidebook Annexes 2A and 11; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 2

Indicator 1.2.1, School planning and implementation. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

Your school’s survey shows Goal 3, safe and protective spaces, with 8 of 17 items in place and no heart. Among the unchecked items are “Your teachers use non-threatening styles of discipline” and the item on a policy against discrimination. The faculty and the PTA officers would rather spend the year’s effort on a covered stage, which parents have offered to fund. What should you do as you prepare the next Annual Implementation Plan?

• A. Approve the covered stage as the year’s main project, since the parents are funding it and a well-supported project is more likely to be completed.
• B. Turn every unchecked Goal 3 item into a separate project this year, so that the goal earns at least a purple heart in next year’s survey.
• C. Bring the Goal 3 gaps and other school data to the planning team, rate the improvement areas with the PIA rubric, and have a project team find the root cause of the area chosen.
• D. Make positive discipline the priority improvement area because Goal 3 has the most unchecked items, and schedule a training for all teachers next month.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). The choice follows preference and funding, not the evidence the school has gathered about its learners.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). It uses the survey, but chases the heart with more projects than a school can run, without rating them or finding causes.
• C (3 points, Relational). It puts the survey’s gaps beside the school’s other data, rates them by the guidebook’s criteria, and finds the root cause before choosing a solution.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). The choice uses data, but it skips the rubric and the root cause, so the training may not address why teachers discipline harshly.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.2.1 asks for an understanding of the phases of school planning. Under DO 44, s. 2015, improvement areas are rated on strategic importance, urgency, magnitude and feasibility, and project teams find root causes before they formulate solutions. The option that picks discipline straight from the count is closer than the stage, but it jumps from a symptom to a solution.

Indicator 1.2.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the phases of development and implementation of school plans aligned with institutional goals and policies.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, SIP Guidebook, Steps 2 and 3, Annexes 2A and 4; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 3

Indicator 4.5.1, Professional development of school personnel. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

Your school’s survey left “Your teachers use non-threatening styles of discipline” unchecked. In interviews, learners said some teachers shout at and shame classmates in front of the class, and bullying reports rose this year. You decide to use learning action cell (LAC) sessions. Which plan best fits the finding?

• A. Hold one LAC session in which the guidance designate reads DO 40, s. 2012 and DO 006, s. 2026 aloud, and file the attendance sheet as proof that teachers were informed.
• B. Ask the Learner Formation Officer to talk to learners about bullying at the flag ceremony, since the reports show that bullying is mainly a learner problem.
• C. Hold one LAC session on positive discipline led by the school head, and have every teacher sign a commitment to use non-threatening discipline in class.
• D. Plan a series of LAC sessions on positive discipline and de-escalation, have teachers try the practices in class and report back, and check later whether learner reports change.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). It addresses the policy, but reading rules aloud informs teachers without changing practice.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). It misreads the finding: learners reported teachers’ practices, which a talk to learners does not touch.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). The topic and the leader are right, but one session and a pledge are a single event, with no classroom practice or follow-up.
• D (3 points, Relational). It links the learner evidence to sustained teacher learning, classroom practice, and a later check on whether learners’ experience changed.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.5.1 asks for an understanding of professional development that addresses performance gaps. DO 35, s. 2016 lets teachers set LAC content “through needs assessment”, and DO 006, s. 2026 directs schools to “Capacitate personnel through LAC and INSET sessions” and to “Strengthen positive discipline, avoiding corporal or punitive actions”. EDCOM II recommends LAC modules on “de-escalation, class meetings, peer mediation, and supportive homeroom guidance”. The option with a single session gets the topic right but stops at coverage.

Indicator 4.5.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of professional development in enhancing strengths and in addressing performance gaps among school personnel.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016, paras. 14 and 16; DepEd Order No. 006, s. 2026, Sec. IX.D; EDCOM II Final Report (2026), printed p. 201; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Frequently asked questions

What is a child-friendly school in DepEd?

In DepEd’s SIP Guidebook, a child-friendly school is “an institution that recognizes and respects the range of rights of children, and not just their right to be educated”. It is inclusive, effective with children, healthy, caring and protective, and involves families and the community.

Where can I find the Child-Friendly School Survey?

It is Annex 2A of the School Improvement Plan Guidebook enclosed with DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, on pages 65 to 76 of the PDF on DepEd’s website. The child protection checklist follows it as Annex 2B.

How is the Child-Friendly School Survey scored?

Each of the seven goals earns a heart worth 0 to 3 points, and each of the six targets 0 to 3 points. Out of 39, a total of 25 to 29 is a Child-Friendly School, 30 to 34 Outstanding, and 35 or more Very Outstanding.

What is DM 73, s. 2006?

DepEd Memorandum No. 73, s. 2006 announced a two-day program in March 2006, organized with UNICEF, to launch the Child-Friendly School System in high schools and present results from elementary schools. It is an event memorandum and sets no standards for schools.

Is the Child-Friendly School Survey required in the School Report Card?

Yes. The SIP Guidebook calls it “required information in the SRC”. Its result is item 12, reported at year-end as points and status, and DO 44, s. 2015 is still in force.

Is the CFSS still implemented?

Not as a named UNICEF and DepEd project: the latest DepEd issuance with the CFSS in its title dates from 2011. The idea continues in DepEd’s mission, in the survey schools still answer under DO 44, s. 2015, and in DO 006, s. 2026, which makes schools division offices “Responsible for child-friendly schools”.

More on school leadership

This post is part of a series on what a school head does under the DepEd rules in force today. Related posts:

• DepEd School Improvement Plan (SIP): Steps, AIP and SRC
• Root Cause Analysis for the DepEd School Improvement Plan
• DepEd Learning Action Cell (LAC) Guidelines: DO 35, s. 2016
• DepEd Child Protection and Anti-Bullying: School Head Duties
• School Governance Council, PTA and Partners: A Guide
• DepEd Revised SBM: DO 007, s. 2024 and the Self-Assessment
• DepEd Enhanced ALS, Inclusive Education and Special Programs
• RA 9155 Duties of DepEd School Heads: 12 Areas Explained
• DepEd ILAW Lesson Plan, DO 016, s. 2026: School Head’s Role
• Leadership Styles of School Heads: What the Evidence Says
• Principal, Head Teacher or Teacher-in-Charge in DepEd
• DepEd WASH Data SY 2023-2024: Toilets, Water, Electricity
• On the app: The roles of a school head, the six roles in one guide, Is the School Improvement Plan working?, a policy review of the SIP, and the PPSSH guide

Sources

• Republic Act No. 9155, Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, Section 7(E), Official Gazette.
• Republic Act No. 10627, Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, Official Gazette.
• DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, Guidelines on the Enhanced School Improvement Planning (SIP) Process and the School Report Card (SRC), Sec. V, and the SIP Guidebook, Annexes 2A, 2B, 11, 12A and 12B.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 73, s. 2006, Child-Friendly School System (CFSS) at the Elementary and Secondary Levels.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 192, s. 2005, Child-Friendly School System (CFSS) at the Secondary Level.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 349, s. 2005, Promoting Secondary Schooling Alternative (SSA) within the Framework of the Child-Friendly School System (CFSS).
• DepEd Memoranda No. 99, s. 2003, No. 393, s. 2004 and No. 86, s. 2011.
• DepEd Order No. 46, s. 2006, Guidelines on the Pilot Implementation of the Open High School Program (OHSP).
• DepEd Order No. 53, s. 2011, Policy Guidelines on the Utilization of Funds for Alternative Delivery Modes (ADMs) in Formal Basic Education.
• DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012, DepEd Child Protection Policy, Sec. 11.
• DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013, Our Department of Education Vision, Mission and Core Values (DepEd VMV).
• DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016, The Learning Action Cell as a K to 12 Basic Education Program School-Based Continuing Professional Development Strategy, paras. 14 and 16.
• DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2016, Policy Guidelines on Daily Lesson Preparation for the K to 12 Basic Education Program (repealed by DO 016, s. 2026).
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads.
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2022, Adoption of the Basic Education Development Plan 2030.
• DepEd, Quality Basic Education Development Plan 2025-2035 (Q-BEDP), July 2025, p. 3 (the BEDP “now extended to 2035”).
• DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022, Implementing Guidelines on the Establishment of School Governance Council.
• DepEd Order No. 031, s. 2022, Child Rights Policy: Adopting the Rights-Based Education Framework in Philippine Basic Education.
• DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024, Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Revised School-Based Management (SBM) System, Annex A.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025, Administration of the National Assessment for School Heads for Fiscal Year 2025.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 090, s. 2025, Dissemination of the Revised IRR of Republic Act No. 10627, Sec. 27.
• DepEd Order No. 006, s. 2026, Guidelines on Ensuring a Safe and Motivating Learning Environment, Secs. II and IX.
• DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Three-Term School Calendar in Basic Education.
• DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, Guidelines on Lesson Planning and Learning Design.
• UNICEF, Child Friendly Schools Manual (2009), Introduction and chs. 2, 6 and 8.
• EDCOM II, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), Final Report, January 2026, printed pp. 25, 172, 197 and 201.
• UNICEF & SEAMEO, SEA-PLM 2024 Main Regional Report (2025), pp. 117 and 119.
• NASH Reviewer data reports: WASH data, SY 2023-2024 and NAT Grade 6 results, SY 2023-2024.

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 and its SIP Guidebook; DepEd Memoranda No. 99, s. 2003, No. 393, s. 2004, No. 192 and 349, s. 2005, No. 73, s. 2006, No. 86, s. 2011, and No. 069 and 090, s. 2025; DepEd Orders No. 46, s. 2006, No. 53, s. 2011, No. 40, s. 2012, No. 36, s. 2013, No. 35, s. 2016, No. 024, s. 2020, No. 024, 026 and 031, s. 2022, No. 007, s. 2024, and No. 006, 009 and 016, s. 2026; the Q-BEDP 2025-2035; UNICEF (2009); EDCOM II Final Report (2026).