DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 replaced the Daily Lesson Log (DLL) and the Detailed Lesson Plan (DLP) with a single lesson plan built on the ILAW framework. ILAW stands for Intentions, Learning Experience, Assessing Learning, and Ways Forward. Below are what the Department of Education (DepEd) now requires in a lesson plan and what the order asks school heads to do: review plans for quality, coach teachers, and observe short walkthroughs that are not rated.

For teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH, formerly the NQESH) under DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025, and for new school heads, the order falls under the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH) in DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020: strands 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of Domain 3, Focusing on Teaching and Learning, and strand 4.5 of Domain 4, Developing Self and Others.

Key points

  • DepEd Order (DO) No. 016, s. 2026 repealed DO 42, s. 2016. The distinction between the DLL and the DLP is gone. One lesson plan, with the same four ILAW elements, applies to new and experienced teachers.
  • A plan is sufficient when its four elements are evident and aligned. There is no required national template. Annex B of the order is a reference only, and regional offices, division offices and schools may not require extra templates or forms.
  • School heads review lesson plans for quality, not only for completeness. They lead qualitative reviews, and they use the Lesson Planning Rubric (Annex A) for coaching, never as a compliance checklist or a scoring tool.
  • Walkthroughs are short, frequent and not rated. The order encourages instructional leaders to observe for about 10 to 15 minutes, or longer when schedules permit, and to give developmental feedback.
  • Fully AI-generated lesson plans are not allowed. Teachers declare any use of artificial intelligence (AI) under three categories: prohibited, limited and guided use.
  • The transition period is over. Teachers could use the old DLL and DLP formats until the end of the first term of School Year (SY) 2026-2027. Under the SY 2026-2027 calendar, the second term, and full implementation, began on September 16, 2026.

What DO 016, s. 2026 repeals and why

DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, Guidelines on Lesson Planning and Learning Design, was signed by Secretary Sonny Angara on June 4, 2026. It repeals DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2016, the Policy Guidelines on Daily Lesson Preparation for the K to 12 Basic Education Program. Other issuances, or parts of them, that conflict with the new order are also repealed, rescinded or modified.

The order states its reason plainly. Over time, it says, practices such as filling in lesson plan forms became “overly tedious and compliance-driven”. That limited the time teachers spent on reflective, purposeful and learner-centered planning. DepEd’s answer is “a more flexible, efficient, and context-responsive framework for lesson planning across all key stages”.

The order also changes how DepEd describes teachers. It recognizes teachers and Alternative Learning System (ALS) implementers as “reflective professionals” who design learning experiences for their own learners and contexts. A lesson plan is now “the instructional tool that documents a teacher’s or ALS implementer’s instructional thinking and intended learning process”. This definition replaces the DLL and DLP distinction of DO 42, s. 2016.

The order covers all public elementary and secondary schools and DepEd-operated community learning centers (CLCs). It also covers DepEd-recognized ALS providers and the basic education units of state and local universities and colleges. Private schools are encouraged to adopt it.

Effectivity and the transition period

The order says it takes effect upon approval and fifteen days after its publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation. It also requires filing with the Office of the National Administrative Registrar (ONAR). Its transitory provision (Section IX) allowed teachers to keep using the DLL or DLP formats of DO 42, s. 2016 until the end of the first term of SY 2026-2027. Full implementation of the new guidelines begins with the second term of SY 2026-2027.

The term dates come from DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, the three-term school calendar. Its SY 2026-2027 calendar ends Term 1 on September 15, 2026 and starts Term 2 on September 16, 2026. DO 009, s. 2026 allows later issuances to adjust the calendar, so check your division’s advisories. As of late October 2026, the ILAW framework is the standard for every lesson plan.

The ILAW framework, element by element

The order calls the ILAW framework “the simplified national standard for designing focused, coherent, and responsive learning experiences”. It has four elements, and each element has one or more components. The table lists every component the order prescribes, in plain words, and what a school head should be able to see in a plan.

Element Component What the order requires What the school head looks for
I: Intentions Learning competencies Identify the competencies targeted in the session. A competency may span several lessons if each session moves learners toward mastery. The competency is taken from the curriculum guide, not invented or paraphrased beyond recognition.
I: Intentions Learning objectives Unpack, cluster or sequence competencies into clear, focused, manageable objectives that fit learner readiness, context and available time. Objectives are smaller than the competency and can be shown by learners by the end of the session.
L: Learning Experience Learning resources Choose resources that are relevant, appropriate and aligned with the objectives. Prepare alternative resources for home-based learning in case face-to-face classes are interrupted, specifically for Hinay level situations. Resources match the objectives, and there is an alternative if classes are disrupted.
L: Learning Experience Pre-lesson activity Design brief introductory activities, routines or check-ins that activate prior knowledge and prepare learners. A short, purposeful start, not a long motivation activity unrelated to the objective.
L: Learning Experience Lesson flow Apply the Learning Design Principles throughout the session. Adjust instruction to learner responses, questions and misconceptions rather than follow the plotted sequence rigidly. Activities build toward the objectives, with planned points where the teacher may adjust.
L: Learning Experience Integration and contextualization Connect lessons within and across learning areas, use technology in contextualized and human-centered ways, and use real-life, cultural or community contexts. Connections that help understanding. A plan may say “N/A” when there is none.
A: Assessing Learning Formative assessments Check understanding throughout the session. Use the results to adjust teaching at once and to identify learners who need more support or more challenge. Checks placed during the lesson, not only at the end, with a plan for what the teacher will do with the results.
W: Ways Forward Reflective practice At the end of each lesson or session, reflect on the teaching and the evidence of learning, then identify next steps such as remediation, reteaching or enrichment. A short reflection that names evidence and a next step, not a general statement that “the lesson went well”.
W: Ways Forward Extended learning opportunities Optional. Provide added learning experiences within or beyond the classroom, as enrichment or remediation. Activities that fit what the reflection found, where the teacher chooses to include them.

The order defines Hinay level situations as “circumstances where learners experience mild stress and learning needs to be intentionally slowed down”. The details are in DepEd Order No. 014, s. 2026, the Guidelines on Learning Continuity in Emergencies.

Annex B, the Lesson Planning Guide, shows one way to organize these elements. It opens with the lesson title, learning area, teacher names, grade and section, number of sessions, references, and a declaration of AI use. Under Intentions it asks for three things: the competency with its content or performance standards, the objectives, and a “Learner Context” note. That note describes how learners have been performing, their interests and possible barriers. Under Ways Forward it says reflections may be written as brief notes, bullets or annotations.

The eight Learning Design Principles

The order adds eight Learning Design Principles. They describe the core features of effective instruction and are aligned with the Curriculum Instructional Design Framework in DepEd Order No. 010, s. 2024, the MATATAG Curriculum policy. They may be applied at any stage of a lesson. The order says not all principles are expected in every lesson, but teachers should apply them over time.

Principle What it means (Table 1 of the order, paraphrased) What you may see in class
Clear Goals and Teaching State precise goals, explain key ideas, model processes, and use plain language and concrete examples. Learners can say what they are learning. A Grade 5 teacher solves one word problem on fractions aloud before learners try one.
Scaffolding Give guidance, prompts, examples and structured practice, then gradually hand responsibility to learners. Learners solve the next problem with the teacher, then in pairs, then alone, with fewer prompts each time.
Checks for Understanding Run low-stakes, timely checks throughout the lesson to inform adjustments. Learners show answers on small boards midway, and the teacher regroups those who got it wrong.
Active Retrieval and Spacing Revisit earlier competencies across lessons to strengthen retention and mastery. A three-question recall of last week’s topic, without notes, opens the period.
Self-awareness and Metacognition Build in goal-setting, planning, monitoring and reflection so learners understand how they learn. Learners explain how they got an answer, or rate their confidence before and after a task.
Social Learning Use structured discussion and collaboration to widen perspectives, deepen understanding and build belonging. Groups of four with assigned roles, where any member may be asked to explain the group’s answer.
Values and Purpose Integration Connect learning to values, citizenship, socio-emotional learning, community aspirations and cultural identity. A lesson on percentages uses prices at the barangay market and a short talk on fair dealing.
Inclusion Design materials and experiences for multiple means of representation, engagement, action and expression, with supports that remove barriers. A learner with low vision has a large-print copy, and every learner may answer orally or in writing.

One line in Table 1 matters for review: “Checks for understanding shall not be limited to the assessment portion of the lesson plan”. A plan that saves all checking for a quiz at the end does not meet this principle. The order also says the principles give DepEd “a common instructional language” for collaborative planning, reflection and instructional leadership. School heads should use the principle names in feedback.

What a lesson plan must contain, and what it need not

The test of a plan is alignment, not length. The order says: “A lesson plan shall be considered sufficient when the learning intentions, learning experience, assessment approach, and ways forward are evident and aligned”.

The order then limits what anyone may add:

  • No components beyond the framework. Teachers shall not be required to include components beyond those the framework prescribes. Extra documentation, excessive detail and expanded requirements that do not support teaching are to be avoided.
  • No required national template. The Annex B guide “shall not be interpreted as a required national template”. Its own note says teachers and schools can adopt it, but it “should NOT be interpreted as the sole national format for lesson planning”. Teachers may use brief notes, integrated responses, or omit sections that do not apply.
  • No added templates from offices or schools. Regional offices, division offices, schools and CLCs shall not require additional or expanded templates, supplementary forms or documentation beyond the standards in Section V(A).
  • Personal formats are allowed. As teachers gain experience, they may adapt templates or develop their own formats, provided the order’s requirements are met.
  • Ready-made materials are references. Teachers may use lesson guides, lesson exemplars and materials from DepEd offices or partners. They remain fully responsible for a plan that fits their own learners, and may adapt those materials.
  • Shared plans count. A lesson plan shared among teachers is valid evidence of preparation, provided every teacher using it understands it and can deliver it well.

Teachers archive their lesson plans, printed or digital, for reference, reflection and professional learning. The order recommends a three-year retention period, with exceptions for exemplary plans kept as samples for coaching. The archiving system is organized at the school level.

When a lesson plan may be more detailed or more concise

The order says “there is no single way to write a lesson plan”. The form and level of detail depend on the teaching situation and on the teacher’s professional development needs. This replaces the DO 42, s. 2016 rule that tied the type of plan to a teacher’s experience and performance rating.

Situation Level of detail Role of the instructional leader
The teacher handles new, unfamiliar or complex content, learners, strategies, tools, resources or modalities May be more detailed Read the plan to understand how the teacher makes decisions and applies the principles, and find areas to strengthen
The teacher has gained confidence and proficiency in the technical and pedagogical sides of teaching May be more concise, with more room for reflective notes and trying new approaches Act as a partner in reflection, help the teacher process insights, support innovation and arrange collaborative learning
The teacher is newly hired, newly assigned to a learning area, or identified as needing support Structured guidance: coaching, collaborative planning, mentoring on the principles, and lesson exemplars Give the support without adding paperwork

The last row has a firm limit. The order says: “Increased instructional support shall not result in additional documentation requirements, expanded templates, or unnecessary administrative burden”. A school head who asks a struggling teacher for longer plans as a form of supervision is acting against the order.

Lesson planning for multigrade classes, learners with disabilities, IPEd and ALS

The order keeps one standard for every class and adds guidance for four settings.

Setting What DO 016, s. 2026 says What the school head does
Multigrade classes Multigrade teachers meet the same standards as monograde teachers. They may use integrated templates that cover two or three grade levels at once, if all essential components are kept. Accept one integrated plan for a combined class, and check that each grade’s competency and checks are visible.
Learners with disabilities (LWDs) The Individualized Education Plan (IEP), as defined under Republic Act (RA) No. 11650, is a critical reference. Teachers are encouraged to work with Inclusive Learning Resource Centers (ILRCs), Special Needs Education Centers and partners. Plans must provide reasonable accommodations and modifications. Make sure teachers have the IEPs of their learners, and connect them with the nearest ILRC or special education teacher.
Indigenous Peoples Education (IPEd) The ILAW components may guide collaborative planning between IPEd teachers and community resource persons such as elders and leaders. Community competencies and Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) are reflected in the plan. Arrange planning time with elders through the community’s own processes, and protect that time.
Alternative Learning System For teachers and ALS implementers, Individual Learning Agreements (ILAs) and similar learner profiles are important references. With the ALS focal person, check that session plans draw on the learners’ ILAs.

The order separates two kinds of adjustment. Accommodations may change time, materials, devices, quantity of tasks or the learning environment. Modifications may change learning objectives, content or performance expectations. RA 11650, Section 4(h), says an IEP describes the learner’s present level of performance and the specific accommodations and modifications the learner needs. A lesson plan for a class with a learner with a disability should show which of these the teacher will use in that lesson.

For ALS, DepEd Order No. 001, s. 2026 on the Enhanced ALS defines the ILA. It is the ALS learner’s learning plan: the competencies, tasks and deliverables to complete within a set time. The learner and the ALS implementer sign it, and a parent or guardian confirms it. The post on ALS, inclusive education and special programs covers these programs in more detail.

The rules on artificial intelligence in lesson planning

DO 016, s. 2026 applies DepEd Order No. 003, s. 2026, the Foundational Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Basic Education, to lesson plans. AI in teaching, learning and assessment may serve only as an auxiliary tool. Human judgment, pedagogical discretion and professional accountability come first. The order concludes that “fully AI-generated lesson plans shall not be allowed”.

The order also warns that overreliance on AI can limit how much teachers learn from planning and can make teaching rigid or overly standardized. Any use of AI in lesson planning must be declared under one of three categories.

Category What it covers Example
Prohibited AI use Core instructional decisions: defining learning objectives, unpacking competencies, designing learning experiences and strategies (the ILAW framework), and critical judgments about learner needs Asking a chatbot to write the objectives and activities for a lesson
Limited AI use Support tasks such as rephrasing, organizing or refining text, only after the key decisions are made and after consultation with co-teachers, instructional leaders or stakeholders has been maximized. Outputs stay subject to teacher review, validation and adaptation. Asking a tool to tighten the wording of instructions the teacher already wrote
Guided AI use Routine, low-risk technical help: grammar and spelling checks, clearer language, formatting and translation. The teacher reviews every output before it goes into the plan. Checking the spelling of a plan, or translating a parent letter, then reading the result

Annex B has a “Declaration of AI use” row that asks teachers to cite how AI was used and points to Annex A of DO 003, s. 2026. A declaration does not make a prohibited use acceptable. Suppose a teacher declares that AI wrote the objectives. The school head’s task is then coaching: plan the next lesson with the teacher, and show where AI may help after the decisions are made.

Collaborative lesson planning and learning action cells

The order encourages collaborative planning so teachers can share strategies, effective practices and learning resources. It says collaboration can reduce duplicated effort and align competencies across learning areas, grade levels and key stages. It also lists collaborative planning, shared resources and digitalization among the “workload-reducing practices” it encourages.

Schools decide how to organize collaboration. The order names Learning Action Cell (LAC) sessions and similar peer-learning platforms as venues. School heads “shall provide regular opportunities for collaborative lesson planning”, and LAC sessions may be the main venue for peer learning, aligning competencies and co-creating plans.

LACs still run under DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016. DO 009, s. 2026 says LAC sessions continue within the Instructional Block of each term, with separate guidelines on LAC scheduling to follow. Under DepEd Order No. 005, s. 2024, preparing lesson plans and attending LAC sessions are both teacher ancillary tasks. The post on DepEd learning action cells explains how to run them.

A practical example: the three Grade 4 teachers of a central school in Iloilo meet in a LAC session at the start of a unit on the water cycle. They agree on the objectives, share one set of resources and write a common plan. Each teacher then adds a short note on his or her own class, such as two learners who need a reading accommodation. Under the order, that shared plan is valid evidence of preparation for all three, provided each one can teach it.

The roles of school heads and instructional leaders

The order defines instructional leadership as “the deliberate practice of supporting teaching and learning through evidence-based feedback and contextualized coaching”. Instructional leaders include school heads, head teachers, master teachers, ALS focal persons, Education Program Supervisors for ALS, and other designated personnel. Examples are grade level coordinators, learning area coordinators, department heads, and head teachers reclassified as Teachers V to VII.

What the school head does, step by step

Paragraph 37 of the order sets five measures at the school level: collaborative planning, qualitative review, workload relief, participatory conferences and a school archive of lesson plans. Other sections add the rubric, walkthroughs and the ongoing assessment of teachers’ needs. The order does not set a calendar. The sequence below is one way to carry out these duties, so treat the timing as a suggestion.

Step Who Document or tool Basis in DO 016, s. 2026
1. Study the order and its two annexes before orienting staff School head, with master teachers and head teachers DO 016, s. 2026, Annexes A and B The whole order
2. Withdraw school templates, forms and submission rules that go beyond the order School head List of current school requirements Paras. 10, 11, 21 and 37(c)
3. Orient teachers on ILAW, the principles, the rubric and the AI categories early in the term School head or a master teacher, in a LAC session Annexes A and B; DO 003, s. 2026 Paras. 8, 25 and 37(a)
4. Remove administrative tasks and protect planning time when class programs are set School head Class programs under DO 005, s. 2024; task list under DO 002, s. 2024 Para. 37(c)
5. Pair new, reassigned or struggling teachers with an instructional leader School head Coaching assignments for master teachers or head teachers Paras. 29 and 37(a)
6. Schedule regular collaborative planning within each term’s Instructional Block School head and LAC leader LAC plan under DO 35, s. 2016 Paras. 26 to 28 and 37(a)
7. Self-check plans before teaching Teachers Annex A rubric Para. 8
8. Review a sample of plans qualitatively, spread across teachers School head and instructional leaders Annex A, with coaching notes Paras. 32 and 37(b)
9. Walk through classes for about 10 to 15 minutes, then hold coaching conversations Instructional leaders Short evidence notes, not a rating form Para. 33
10. Hold a participatory conference on planning and learner outcomes, for example near the end of each term School head and ALS focal person Evidence of learning and teachers’ reflections Paras. 37(d) and 41
11. Keep the school archive of lesson plans Teachers, in a system the school sets up Printed or digital folders, with three-year retention recommended Para. 37(e)

Division and national offices also support this work. Schools Division Offices (SDOs) orient school and CLC personnel on formative coaching and mentoring. The National Educators’ Academy of the Philippines (NEAP), with the Bureau of Human Resource and Organizational Development (BHROD), provides capacity-building on lesson planning, coaching and reflective practice.

Relieving teachers of administrative tasks

The order points school heads to two workload orders. DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024 removed administrative tasks from teachers. School heads and non-teaching personnel now have sole responsibility for these tasks. The order’s list includes personnel administration, property custodianship, financial management and records management. It also includes program management, such as feeding and school disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM).

DO 005, s. 2024 sets an eight-hour workday for teachers: six hours of actual classroom teaching and two hours of teacher ancillary tasks, which may be spent inside or outside the school. No teacher may be required to submit documentary evidence or accomplishment reports on how those two hours are spent outside the school. DepEd Memorandum No. 053, s. 2024 still asks a teacher who leaves during a vacant period to sign the school logbook or a locator slip, and a teacher who does the tasks before or after all classes to submit a certificate of undertaking, both attached to the daily time record (DTR). The guide to teachers’ ancillary hours explains the forms. The ancillary tasks include preparing lesson plans, action research and attending LAC sessions. School heads must prepare class programs that give teachers enough time for this work.

For a school head, this means three concrete actions. Assign administrative work to the school head and non-teaching staff, not to teachers. Protect planning time in the class program. Do not ask teachers for reports on how they spend their ancillary hours outside the school. Teacher Workload and Accountability covers the hours teachers reported in an EDCOM II–IDinsight survey taken after these two orders, and what has changed since.

How to review a lesson plan under the new rubric

Annex A, the Lesson Planning Rubric, has nine statements that a teacher marks “Yes” or “Not Yet”. A third column asks why, and what will make the plan better, and a box at the end holds notes for the coaching session. Teachers use it first, as a self-check. Master teachers, school heads and other instructional leaders use it for coaching and feedback.

The order sets two limits on how leaders use it. The rubric supports reflection and improvement, “and not as a compliance checklist or scoring tool for paperwork completion”. When reviewing plans, “Instructional leaders shall not focus solely on checking the completeness of documents”. Monitoring, coaching and feedback focus instead on four things:

  1. The alignment and coherence of the lesson components, given the learners’ readiness and context.
  2. The intentional use of the Learning Design Principles, and of classroom routines, culture and expectations, throughout the lesson.
  3. The use of evidence of learning and of reflections to improve delivery and later lessons.
  4. The teacher’s design and practice as signs of his or her beliefs about teaching, and the strengths he or she is developing.

A review checklist built from the rubric

The checklist below restates the rubric’s nine statements. It adds the evidence a reviewer looks for and the signs that a statement is “Not Yet”.

Rubric area Check Evidence of “Yes” Common sign of “Not Yet”
Intentions clearly stated The competency comes from the curriculum and the objectives break it into parts learners can show. One competency, two or three objectives that learners can do and the teacher can see. Objectives copied word for word from the competency, or too many for the time.
Intentions evident across sections One objective can be traced through an activity, a check and the reflection. Each objective has at least one activity and one check. Activities that serve no stated objective.
Learning experience clear Another teacher could teach the lesson from the plan without asking. Steps in order, with what learners do and what the teacher does. Only activity titles, such as “group work”, with no task.
Principles intentionally embedded Some Learning Design Principles are chosen on purpose for this lesson. The plan names how it will scaffold, check or retrieve. Principles listed as labels with nothing in the activities to match.
Integration and contextualization used Natural links to other learning areas, local life or technology are used where they help. A local example that makes the concept clearer. A forced link added only to fill the section.
Experience inclusive Supports for learners with disabilities, barriers or unique contexts are planned. Named accommodations drawn from IEPs or from the learner context note. One task for everyone with no options.
Assessment throughout the session Checks occur during the lesson and tell the teacher who needs support. Two or more quick checks, with what the teacher will do with the results. A single quiz at the end.
Assessment generates evidence The check shows whether the objective was met. Items or tasks that match the objective’s verb and content. Items that test a different skill from the objective.
Ways forward actionable The reflection leads to a specific next step. “Six learners still confuse numerator and denominator: reteach with fraction strips on Monday.” “The lesson was successful.”

Read the plan with the teacher’s context in mind: the learner context note, the class size, and the previous lesson’s reflection. Do not mark every row. Choose one or two strengths to affirm and one area to work on. Write that area in the “Notes for my instructional coaching session” box, and let the teacher keep the rubric.

When the rubric rows do not show the problem, check four general points.

  • Each activity builds on the one before it.
  • Each part fits the time given to it.
  • Learners have the skills the task needs.
  • Learners, not only the teacher, spend much of the period speaking, writing or doing.

How to hold a coaching conversation after a walkthrough

The order encourages instructional leaders to conduct “frequent, non-rated, formative walkthrough observations, typically lasting approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes, or longer when schedules permit”. The purpose is to see how lesson plans are enacted in class. Walkthroughs let leaders give timely, constructive feedback “without the pressure associated with formal performance evaluation”.

What to look for in a 10 to 15 minute walkthrough

A short visit cannot cover a whole lesson. Choose one or two Learning Design Principles, ideally ones the teacher asked about, and use the third column of the principles table above as a guide. Write down evidence: what the teacher and the learners said and did, not your opinion of it. Check also whether the plan’s checks for understanding happen, and what the teacher does with the results.

The conversation, step by step

  1. Meet soon. Talk the same day or the next day, in private, at a time the teacher chooses.
  2. State the purpose. Remind the teacher that the walkthrough is not rated and that the aim is the next lesson.
  3. Ask first. Invite the teacher to describe what went well and what surprised him or her.
  4. Share one or two pieces of evidence. Describe what you saw and heard, not your judgment of it.
  5. Connect evidence to the plan. Link it to a rubric statement or a Learning Design Principle, using the principle’s name.
  6. Agree on one next step. Let the teacher choose it, and write it down in a sentence.
  7. Follow up. Return for a short visit focused on that step, and ask what changed for learners.

Coaching do’s and don’ts

Do Don’t
Make the meeting safe and private, and start on time Hold the talk in the faculty room or in front of others
Listen more than you talk, and check that you understood Interrupt, or answer your own questions
Name specific strengths with evidence Give only general praise or only criticism
Focus on one issue when several come up List every problem you noticed
Expect growth and say so Compare the teacher with other teachers
Say “I do not know, let us find out” when that is true Pretend to know a learning area you have not taught
Leave the decision on the next step with the teacher Impose a fix or rewrite the plan yourself
Keep what was said confidential Discuss the visit with other staff or bring others along uninvited

A sample exchange

Mr. Dela Cruz teaches Grade 7 English in a large high school in Quezon City. His plan has one check, a quiz at the end of the period. During a 15-minute walkthrough, the school head hears him ask the class twice whether they understand. Each time the class answers “Yes, sir” together, and he moves on.

They meet the next morning. The school head first asks him how he knew the class was ready to move on, and he says the class answered yes. She then describes what she saw: the same six learners answered aloud, while several learners at the back had not started the exercise. She points to the Checks for Understanding principle and to the rubric line on assessment throughout the session. Mr. Dela Cruz decides that before the group exercise, every learner will write one example sentence on a slip of paper for him to scan. The school head offers to visit for ten minutes the following week to see the slips in use.

What school heads should stop doing

Several familiar practices now conflict with the order, or with the workload orders it cites. The table pairs each one with what to do instead.

Stop Start instead Basis
Checking plans mainly for complete parts and signatures Reading plans for alignment, coherence and evidence of learning DO 016, s. 2026, para. 32
Requiring a school or division template, or extra forms Accepting any format in which the four ILAW elements are evident and aligned Paras. 10, 11 and 21
Scoring teachers with the Annex A rubric Using the rubric in a coaching conversation Para. 9
Rating walkthroughs Short, frequent, non-rated visits with developmental feedback Para. 33
Asking teachers who need support for longer plans Giving them coaching, co-planning and exemplars Para. 29
Treating any departure from the plan as a fault Asking what the teacher saw that led to the change Para. 7(b)(iii)
Expecting all eight principles in every lesson Looking for principles used on purpose over a series of lessons Para. 18
Rejecting shared plans as evidence of preparation Accepting shared plans that each teacher understands and can deliver Para. 28
Assigning administrative tasks to teachers Giving those tasks to the school head and non-teaching staff DO 002, s. 2024; DO 016, s. 2026, para. 37(c)

The order does not mention signing or approving each lesson plan. It describes review as qualitative and developmental, and it asks school heads to support “the gradual simplification of lesson planning practices”. If a school still requires weekly signed submissions, review that practice against paragraphs 21 and 37(c).

DO 42, s. 2016 vs DO 016, s. 2026: what changed

Topic DO 42, s. 2016 (repealed) DO 016, s. 2026 (in force)
Planning documents The DLL, covering a day’s or a week’s lessons, and the DLP, a detailed description of the steps of a lesson One lesson plan. The definition replaces the DLL and DLP distinction.
Who prepares what Newly hired teachers without experience prepared a daily DLP for a year. Teachers with at least one year of service, in learning areas with DepEd learner’s materials and teacher’s guides, filled out a weekly DLL. The same components apply to new and experienced teachers. Detail depends on the situation and the teacher’s development needs.
Parts Objectives, Content, Learning Resources, Procedures, Remarks and Reflection Intentions, Learning Experience, Assessing Learning and Ways Forward
Procedures Ten parts, from reviewing the previous lesson to additional activities for application or remediation, to be done across the week A lesson flow that applies the Learning Design Principles and adjusts to learner responses
Format DLL templates in the annexes for kindergarten, Grades 1 to 12, multigrade and ALS No required national template. Annex B is a reference. Personal formats are allowed.
Assessment A formative assessment plan, with three formative assessments and an evaluation in the procedure Formative checks throughout the session, not limited to an assessment section
Reflection Notes such as the number of learners who earned 80% in the evaluation and who needed remediation A reflection on teaching and evidence of learning, with next steps, in brief notes if the teacher prefers
Monitoring Preparation was part of the Results-based Performance Management System (RPMS) assessment, monitored in the RPMS cycle Qualitative review, coaching and non-rated walkthroughs. The rubric is not a compliance tool.
Artificial intelligence Not addressed Three use categories, a declaration of AI use, and no fully AI-generated plans
Collaboration Teachers were allowed to work together, and veteran teachers mentored new ones Collaborative planning encouraged, LACs named as venues, shared plans valid evidence of preparation
Diverse learners Differentiated instruction and contextualization encouraged IEPs under RA 11650, ILAs, IKSPs, integrated multigrade templates, and reasonable accommodations and modifications
Records Schools could store lesson plans electronically and build a databank Plans archived at the school level, with a three-year retention period recommended

PPSSH strands and Career Stage 1 indicators

DO 016, s. 2026 lists the PPSSH among its references. The order’s duties for school heads fall mainly in four strands. The indicator texts below are quoted from the PPSSH. For the whole domain, see PPSSH Domain 3: Teaching and Learning and the PPSSH guide.

Strand Career Stage 1 indicator How DO 016, s. 2026 applies
3.1 School-based review, contextualization and implementation of learning standards 3.1.1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of school-based review, contextualization and implementation of learning standards. Qualitative review checks plans against curriculum standards and learner needs. Plans include opportunities for integration and contextualization, and IKSPs in IPEd.
3.2 Teaching standards and pedagogies 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. The school head must know the ILAW framework and the eight Learning Design Principles well enough to coach with them.
3.3 Teacher performance feedback 3.3.1 Demonstrate understanding of the use of feedback obtained from learners, parents and other stakeholders to help teachers improve their performance. Walkthrough evidence includes how learners respond. Coaching feedback is developmental, not rated, and built on evidence of learning.
4.5 Professional development of school personnel 4.5.1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of professional development in enhancing strengths and in addressing performance gaps among school personnel. Structured guidance for new or reassigned teachers, LAC-based collaborative planning, and support matched to each teacher’s development needs.

Domain 3 of the PPSSH expects school heads to “provide technical assistance on instruction that relates to curriculum, practice, and performance”. DO 016, s. 2026 describes what that assistance looks like for lesson planning. The post on instructional supervision covers classroom observation more broadly.

Practice: how the NASH may test this

The NASH under DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025 uses conceptual and situational items scored on the SOLO (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome) taxonomy. An item on lesson planning will likely describe a school practice or a classroom event and ask for the best action. The best answer will follow DO 016, s. 2026 and show the developmental purpose behind it: review for quality, coaching, and less paperwork. The items below are written in that style. They are not real NASH items. For timed practice, use the practice sets on the app and the 50 NASH practice questions with answers.

Question 1

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

You are newly designated as school head in October 2026. The school has long required every teacher to submit a lesson plan on a 12-column school form every Friday. The head teacher checks each form for completeness and signs it. What is the most appropriate action?

  • A. Keep the Friday submission and the school form, but add the four ILAW headings to the form so that the school can show compliance when the division monitors.
  • B. Withdraw the school form, accept any format in which the four ILAW elements are evident and aligned, and shift review to qualitative feedback and coaching.
  • C. Adopt the Annex B guide as the required school template, and score each teacher’s plans with the Annex A rubric to decide who needs coaching first.
  • D. Stop reviewing lesson plans altogether, since the new order treats teachers as reflective professionals who no longer need any review of their plans.
Answer and explanation

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

  • A (1 point, Unistructural). It notices the new elements, but it keeps an extra school template and a completeness check, both of which the order tells schools to drop.
  • B (3 points, Relational). It connects the sufficiency rule, the ban on added templates and the duty to lead qualitative reviews into one change in school practice.
  • C (2 points, Multistructural). It knows the two annexes, but it makes a reference guide mandatory and uses the rubric as a scoring tool, which the order forbids.
  • D (0 points, Prestructural). The order still requires school heads to lead qualitative reviews of lesson plans. Dropping review misreads the order’s purpose.

Why. DO 016, s. 2026 says a plan is sufficient when the learning intentions, learning experience, assessment approach and ways forward are evident and aligned. It bars schools from requiring extra templates or forms, and it says the rubric is not a scoring tool. It also keeps review, but as a qualitative process that leads to coaching. The best answer applies all of these at once.

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, paras. 8 to 11, 21, 32 and 37; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 2

Indicator 3.2.2, Teaching standards and pedagogies. Career Stage 2, Situational, Difficult.

During a 12-minute walkthrough of a Grade 8 Science class, you see the teacher skip the group activity in her plan. A quick check had shown that most learners were confused, so she reteaches with a demonstration. Afterwards she apologizes for not following her lesson plan. What should you do?

  • A. Record the change in your walkthrough notes as a planning gap, and ask her to revise the plan so that it matches what she actually taught in class that day.
  • B. Rate the lesson on the classroom observation tool, since the walkthrough gave enough evidence to score her performance for this term’s review.
  • C. Commend her for checking understanding, then ask her to resubmit the plan with a written explanation of the change for the school’s lesson plan file.
  • D. Tell her that adjusting to learners is what the order expects, ask what the check showed, and agree with her on how her ways forward will help learners still confused.
Answer and explanation

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

  • A (1 point, Unistructural). It focuses on the match between plan and lesson. The order says instruction is adjusted to learner responses, not tied rigidly to the plotted sequence.
  • B (0 points, Prestructural). Walkthroughs under the order are non-rated and formative. A rated walkthrough loses the developmental purpose the order gives it.
  • C (2 points, Multistructural). It sees the value of the check, but it adds documentation that the order says support must not create.
  • D (3 points, Relational). It links the teacher’s decision to the lesson flow rule, uses her evidence, and ties the next step to the Ways Forward element. That is developmental feedback.

Why. DO 016, s. 2026 says instruction “shall be adjusted based on learner responses, questions, misconceptions, and emerging needs” rather than rigid adherence to the plan. It describes walkthroughs as non-rated and meant for timely, developmental feedback. A Career Stage 2 school head gives technical assistance that builds on what the teacher did well and agrees on a next step with her.

Indicator 3.2.2: Provide technical assistance to teachers on teaching standards and pedagogies within and across learning areas to improve their teaching practice.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, paras. 7(b)(iii), 7(d), 10, 29 and 33; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 3

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

A Teacher I hired this school year submits a lesson plan whose objectives and activities were produced by an AI chatbot from a one-line prompt. She declared the AI use in her plan, as the Annex B guide asks. What is the best response?

  • A. Explain that AI may not set objectives or design the lesson, then plan her next lesson with her and a master teacher, keeping AI for language and formatting after decisions are made.
  • B. Accept the plan, because she declared the AI use as the Annex B guide asks, and remind her to read the output carefully before she uses it in her class.
  • C. Report the plan to the division as a violation of DO 003, s. 2026, and require her to write every lesson plan by hand for the rest of the school year.
  • D. Ask her to rewrite the objectives herself, but let her keep the AI-designed activities, since the activities are a support task that AI may assist with.
Answer and explanation

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

  • A (3 points, Relational). It applies the prohibited category correctly and responds with structured guidance for a new teacher. It also shows her the limited and guided uses that are allowed.
  • B (1 point, Unistructural). It knows the declaration rule, but a declaration does not make a prohibited use acceptable.
  • C (0 points, Prestructural). It treats a development need as a disciplinary case, and handwriting is not a requirement in the order.
  • D (2 points, Multistructural). It sees that objectives are a core decision, but designing learning experiences is also prohibited AI use under the order.

Why. DO 016, s. 2026 bars fully AI-generated lesson plans. It lists defining objectives, unpacking competencies and designing learning experiences as prohibited AI uses. It also says newly hired teachers receive structured guidance such as coaching, collaborative planning and mentoring, without added paperwork. The best answer addresses the teacher’s performance gap through professional development, which is what indicator 4.5.1 describes.

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. 016, s. 2026, paras. 23 to 25 and 29, and Annex B; DepEd Order No. 003, s. 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Frequently asked questions

What is the ILAW framework in DepEd lesson planning?

The ILAW framework is the lesson planning standard of DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, with four elements: Intentions, Learning Experience, Assessing Learning, and Ways Forward. Intentions covers competencies and objectives. Learning Experience covers resources, the pre-lesson activity, the lesson flow and integration. Assessing Learning covers formative checks, and Ways Forward covers reflection and extended learning.

Is there a required lesson plan template under DO 016, s. 2026?

No. The Annex B Lesson Planning Guide is a reference that schools may adopt, but the order says it is not a required national template. Regional offices, division offices and schools may not require added templates or forms. A plan is sufficient when its four ILAW elements are evident and aligned.

Can teachers still use the DLL or DLP in SY 2026-2027?

Not after the first term. DO 016, s. 2026 allowed the DLL and DLP formats only until the end of the first term of SY 2026-2027, which ended on September 15, 2026 under the calendar in DO 009, s. 2026. Full implementation of the ILAW framework began with the second term. DO 42, s. 2016, which created the DLL and DLP, is repealed.

Can DepEd teachers use AI to make lesson plans?

Teachers may use AI only for support tasks, and fully AI-generated lesson plans are not allowed. AI may not define objectives, unpack competencies or design learning experiences. It may help rephrase or organize text after the teacher’s decisions are made, and it may check grammar, spelling, formatting and translation. Every use must be declared.

How long is a walkthrough observation under DO 016, s. 2026?

A walkthrough typically lasts about 10 to 15 minutes, or longer when schedules permit. The order describes walkthroughs as frequent, non-rated and formative. Their purpose is to see how lesson plans work in class and to give timely, developmental feedback.

More on school leadership

This post is part of a series on what a school head does under the DepEd rules in force today. The other posts, in reading order:

Sources

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 and its Annexes A and B; DepEd Orders No. 42, s. 2016, No. 009, s. 2026, No. 003, s. 2026, No. 002, s. 2024, No. 005, s. 2024, No. 001, s. 2026 and No. 35, s. 2016; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020 and the PPSSH; Republic Act No. 11650.