DepEd School Improvement Plan (SIP): Steps, AIP and SRC

A public school prepares its School Improvement Plan (SIP) under Department of Education (DepEd) Order No. 44, s. 2015, the guidelines on the Enhanced School Improvement Planning (ESIP) process and the School Report Card (SRC). Below are the planning team, the preparatory activities, and all eleven steps of the Assess, Plan and Act phases with their outputs, followed by the Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) and the SRC, with worked examples from Philippine public schools.

For new school heads and for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH, formerly the NQESH), school improvement planning falls under strands 1.2, 1.6 and 1.7 of Domain 1, Leading Strategically, and strands 5.4 and 5.5 of Domain 5, Building Connections, in the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), adopted by DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Key points

• DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 still governs school improvement planning in 2026. No later order replaces it. DepEd memoranda of 2025 and 2026 on school improvement funds still ask schools to identify Priority Improvement Areas (PIAs) in their SIP and to put the activities in their AIP.
• The SIP covers three school years; the AIP covers one. Both go through the same three phases: Assess, Plan and Act. The plan aims to improve access, quality and governance.
• The plan is made by a team, not by the school head alone. The School-Community Planning Team (SPT) has at least seven members, including a learner, a parent, a teacher and a barangay representative.
• Find the root cause before you choose a solution. The Assess phase requires listening to learners, observing the actual school process and finding the root cause. Only then does a project team design solutions, test them on a small group and roll them out.
• The SRC is for communication and advocacy, not for planning or accountability. It has three parts and 19 items, is reported at least twice a school year, and is written in language parents understand.

What is a School Improvement Plan in DepEd?

DepEd Order (DO) No. 44, s. 2015 calls the SIP “a roadmap that lays down specific interventions” that a school and its community carry out “within a period of three consecutive school years”. The enclosed School Improvement Plan Guidebook adds that the SIP is evidence-based, results-based and learner-centered. It is prepared by the SPT and is central to School-Based Management (SBM).

The legal basis is Republic Act No. 9155, the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001. Section 7 gives each school head authority, accountability and responsibility for “developing the school education program and school improvement plan”. The guide to RA 9155 school head duties covers the rest of that list.

The SIP and the AIP work as a pair. The SIP sets the three-year direction, and the AIP turns one year of it into activities.

The plan aims at three key result areas of basic education: access, quality and governance. Under the guidebook’s four guiding principles, the SIP is anchored on DepEd’s vision, mission and core values and on Central, Regional, Division and school goals. It is evidence-based and learner-centered, calls for systems thinking and continuous improvement, and involves teachers, parents, community leaders and learners.

Is DO 44, s. 2015 still in force in 2026?

Yes. As of October 26, 2026, DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 is still the governing guideline for school improvement planning. The evidence is below.

1. The order has no end date. Paragraph 9 says the guidelines “shall remain in effect, unless sooner repealed, amended, or rescinded”. The order rescinded earlier issuances inconsistent with it and told schools to begin the enhanced cycle by January 2016.
2. No later order replaces it. As of October 2026, DepEd has issued no later order on school improvement planning or the SRC, and no memorandum that replaces or amends DO 44.
3. The revised SBM order cites it. DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024 lists DO 44, s. 2015 among its references, and the only order it repeals by name is the old SBM order, DO 83, s. 2012. Its self-assessment checklist includes “The school has a functional school-community planning team”. It also includes “The school’s strategic plan is operationalized through an implementation plan”.
4. Current memoranda use its terms. DepEd Memorandum No. 073, s. 2025 tells schools to “revisit their SIP and AIP to ensure that literacy and numeracy are identified as PIAs”. DepEd Memorandum No. 048, s. 2026 asks recipient schools to make sure that their activities are “reflected in their approved School Improvement Plan (SIP) and Annual Implementation Plan (AIP)”. Both memoranda release the School Innovation and Improvement Fund (SIIF).
5. The 2026 learning continuity order builds on it. DepEd Order No. 014, s. 2026 says it complements DepEd’s planning orders, including the SIP. It asks that school-based Community Learning Centers (CLCs) be reflected in the school’s AIP.

Two later documents shape how the plan is written today. The Basic Education Development Plan (BEDP) 2030, adopted by DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2022, keeps the three-year SIP. Its planning chart shows school cycles for 2022-2025 and 2025-2028 under six-year division and regional plans. It calls the SIP “the most important plan in DepEd as its content directly targets and affects learners’ performance”.

BEDP 2030 also lists a “Revised SIP policy” among its planned outputs. As of October 2026, DepEd has not issued one. Some regions have set their own cycles in the meantime. DepEd Region VIII’s Regional Memorandum No. 301, s. 2023, for example, describes its schools’ 2023-2028 SIPs as six-year plans. Follow the DO 44 process, and check your region’s and division’s memoranda for the cycle years and any updated templates.

Some parts of the 2015 guidebook have aged. The table below lists what to update.

For what later issuances have added to the SIP, the money tied to it, and the evidence on how plans are written and used, read the app’s policy review, Is the School Improvement Plan working?

The SIP cycle: three phases and eleven steps

The guidebook organizes the work into preparatory activities, three phases and eleven numbered steps. Each step produces an output that becomes the input of the next step.

A last activity, communicating to stakeholders through the SRC, runs alongside the cycle. For Year 2 and Year 3, the cycle starts again at Step 2 with the monitoring data and the latest SRC.

Who sits on the School-Community Planning Team (SPT)

The guidebook asks the school head to invite at least seven stakeholders, with good gender balance. The school head leads the team.

At least one member must also sit on the School Governing Council (SGC). The school head may add members such as non-government organization (NGO) representatives, an Alim or Ulama, and Indigenous Peoples (IP) representatives. Other possible members are Arabic Language and Islamic Values Education (ALIVE) teachers, alumni, and representatives of nearby communities that send many learners. In multicultural settings, IP and Muslim representation should be considered, and one member can hold two representations.

The team has working rules. Keep the total an odd number to prevent tied votes. A quorum is more than half of the members. An absent member may send a substitute with the same representation. In a small school where the school head is also the teacher representative, the guidebook allows an extra parent seat.

Learners and the community sit on the team as full members, not as guests. A Grade 6 pupil or a Grade 10 student leader can explain why classmates stay home on market days. The barangay representative can commit the barangay to a drainage canal that the school cannot build. The guide to School-Based Management under DO 007, s. 2024 explains how a “functional” planning team is now assessed. Before inviting members, Stakeholder Analysis for DepEd School Heads: A Guide shows how to list and map the groups the team should represent.

Preparatory activities: Step 1, prepare for SIP development

Step 1 has three activities. The guidebook suggests about one month for all of them.

Activity 1.1: Gather and organize the data

The school head and a small team gather data on access, quality and governance and prepare the school profile. The guidebook estimates two weeks for this. The School-Community Data Template (Annex 1A) is the single container for the data, though a school may use its own system if it already works.

The team also prepares a first SRC from the same data, to present to the SPT. The activity uses four other tools.

Check first what the school already has in its forms and information systems. Assign different groups to different data sources so that no two groups collect the same data. The guidebook warns that inaccurate data lead to objectives and solutions that do not match learners’ real needs.

Activity 1.2: Form the SPT

The school head invites the members listed above. The output is a list of SPT members and what each represents.

Activity 1.3: Convene the SPT

The guidebook suggests a one-day meeting with three parts.

1. Orientation. Explain DepEd’s mandate on the SIP, its features and principles, the cycle and its phases, and why the SIP and AIP matter. Then let the members agree on the roles of the chair and members.
2. Vision sharing. Read the DepEd vision, mission and core values with the team and ask what they mean for the school’s own learners. Vision sharing does not produce a new vision statement. The SIP opens with DepEd’s vision, mission and core values, and any school goals must align with the Division goals.
3. Scheduling. Draw up an SPT timetable. The guidebook’s suggested durations are about one month for preparation, two months for Assess, one month for Plan, and the rest of the school year for Act. Fit the dates to your school calendar.

Document every meeting with minutes, photos or a logbook. These records make reporting easier and show later teams what was decided and why.

Phase 1: Assess (Steps 2 and 3)

Step 2: Gap analysis and identifying the PIAs

In Activity 2.1, the school head presents the SRC to the SPT. The team then compares the school’s data with the Division’s targets for the next three years, using the Gap Analysis Template (Annex 3). For each Division target, the template records the data needed, whether the school is contributing, and the factors that hold it back. It also records the projects that already address the target and the groups of learners that need attention.

Areas with gaps go on the initial list of improvement areas. So do areas with no Division target that are pressing, alarming, stagnating or worsening. Group related problems together.

A PIA is an area of school management, operations or service delivery that must change to improve access, quality or governance. A PIA can also be a community situation that affects learners, such as flooding or an unsafe water source.

The PIA rubric with a worked example

In Activity 2.2, the SPT rates each improvement area from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) on four criteria. The template is Annex 4.

The team averages the four ratings and reads the result against fixed bands. An average of 4.5 to 5.0 is very high priority, 3.5 to 4.49 is high, and 2.5 to 3.49 is moderate. An average of 1.5 to 2.49 is low, and 1.0 to 1.49 is very low. Annex 4’s instruction mentions five criteria but lists four. The fifth factor in the PIA definition, the gap with Division goals, is covered by the gap analysis in Activity 2.1.

Here is a worked example for an elementary school of about 700 learners in a flood-prone barangay. The ratings are the SPT’s judgment after discussing the data.

The SPT should write a short reason beside each rating. Reading earns a 5 in strategic importance because better reading helps promotion, attendance and every subject. Flooding earns only a 2 in feasibility because drainage outside the school belongs to the barangay and the LGU. It still rates high because every learner is affected and the rainy season sets a deadline.

When two areas tie, as absences and flooding do here, the average does not decide. The team looks at what the school can act on this year and who must act with it. Here it might take on absences with a project team and bring flooding to the barangay through its SPT representative.

Write the PIAs in the first column of the Planning Worksheet (Annex 5). PIAs differ in size. The guidebook notes that flooding may be solved within a year while high dropout may take three. In Year 2 or Year 3, replace a solved PIA with another from the list, and rate the list again because the school’s situation may have changed.

Step 3: Analyze the PIAs

Step 3 has seven activities. Most of the work moves from the SPT to the project teams.

1. 3.1 Set general objectives. For each PIA, the SPT writes what it wants to achieve over three years and ticks the years each objective covers. The next section explains how to write them.
2. 3.2 Organize the project teams. Form one team per PIA for the current year, or one team for several PIAs in a small school. Members come from the community, teachers and learners, with at least one SPT member. For teaching and learning PIAs, draw members from the Learning Action Cells (LACs). Each team agrees on roles and lists the factors that may affect its PIA. The guidebook reminds teams that “Factors are different from solutions”.
3. 3.3 Listen to learners and other stakeholders. This activity is explained in its own section below.
4. 3.4 Analyze the school processes. The team draws a flowchart of a school process related to the PIA, such as attendance checking or reading assessment. It maps what is happening now, “and NOT what the process should be”. Brainstorming and interviews are not enough: direct observation is required. Problems seen at specific activities are called “storm clouds”, and they must be specific, measurable and observable.
5. 3.5 Select the area of focus. The team picks the storm cloud that, when addressed, will clearly affect the PIA. It writes a focused problem statement that gives the size of the problem, how often it happens, where and when. The guidebook’s example is “During the first quarter, ten out of thirty Mathematics Periodical Test papers of Grade 7 students had items that were erroneously checked”.
6. 3.6 Do root cause analysis. The root cause is the deepest underlying cause of the problem. It must be observable and measurable, and it is not the solution. Teams use a fishbone diagram, a why-why diagram or a problem tree, and prioritize when there are several causes. The guide to root cause analysis for the School Improvement Plan shows these tools with full school examples.
7. 3.7 Present the root cause to the SPT. The team presents the root cause with the interview results and other data. It also shows the flowchart with its storm clouds and the focused problem statement.

Listening to learner voice (Activity 3.3)

The guidebook asks project teams to talk to the learners and stakeholders behind the numbers, and says this step “should not be skipped”. School data show what is happening. Learners and parents explain why, and they say whether the school’s current interventions help them.

Annex 6 gives the rules for listening. Ask open-ended, clear questions, and let people talk. Avoid biased, leading or loaded questions. Ask follow-up questions to find out why a person needs something, not only what they ask for. Separate needs, which most stakeholders share, from wants, which are preferences about how a need is met. Address needs first.

For a PIA on frequent absences, the questions might be:

• “Tell me about the last day you did not come to school. What happened that morning?”
• “What would make it easier for you to come to school every day?”
• “What has the school done when you were absent? Did it help you?”

A leading question such as “Is it because the lessons are boring?” gives the answer and should be avoided. Transcribe answers word for word in the language the person used, mark the statements that bear on the PIA, and group them into needs, issues and suggestions. Talk with children in a safe, open place, explain why you are asking, and keep their names out of the shared notes.

Repeat the listening every year of the cycle, because learners’ needs and situations change. Learner voice also enters the plan through the student representative on the SPT and through student-led school watching.

Writing general objectives, project objectives and targets

The plan uses two kinds of objectives. General objectives in the Planning Worksheet state what the school wants to achieve for each PIA over three years. Project objectives in each project design state what one solution will achieve and by how much.

The guidebook’s own example of a general objective is short: “to reduce student tardiness”. A more useful statement names five things.

1. An action verb: increase, reduce, improve.
2. An indicator: what will be measured.
3. A baseline: where the school is now.
4. A target: where it wants to be.
5. A time frame: by when.

Here is a general objective for the reading PIA above.

To increase the share of Grade 4 to 6 learners reading at grade level from 52% at the start of Year 1 to 75% by the end of Year 3.

The SPT agrees on the target from the school’s own context and the Division targets.

Project objectives must be SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-bound. The guidebook’s example is “To reduce the incidence of erroneously checked Mathematical Periodical Test papers of Grade 7 students by 100%”. Avoid objectives that cannot be measured, such as “to enhance reading culture”. Also avoid objectives that describe an activity instead of a result, such as “to conduct a reading program”.

For PIAs that span more than one year, set incremental targets for each year. The guidebook’s example is to increase independent readers by 5% in the first year and then raise the target in Years 2 and 3. For the reading objective above, the yearly targets might be 60% in Year 1, 68% in Year 2 and 75% in Year 3. Yearly targets let the SPT see at the end of each year whether the school is on track.

Phase 2: Plan (Steps 4 to 8)

Step 4: Review general objectives and targets. The team writes the root cause in the Planning Worksheet and checks that each general objective still fits it. If the root cause shows the problem is different from what the team first thought, the objective changes.

Step 5: Formulate solutions. Each project team brainstorms solutions for its root cause. A good solution passes five tests. It addresses the root cause, is within the school’s control, is economical and is sustainable. It also has the support of the stakeholders and process owners concerned. Process owners are the people who run a process and can change it, such as the Grade 5 advisers who check attendance.

Step 6: Develop project designs. The team writes each solution as a project in the Project Work Plan and Budget Matrix (Annex 9). One project design holds only one solution. The design names the problem statement, the project objective and the root cause, and lists each activity with its output, date, person responsible, budget and budget source. Keep projects small enough to show results within the year, and split long projects into smaller ones. Each project is monitored by the SPT at least twice, at the middle and end of implementation, and the dates go into the matrix.

Step 7: Write the SIP. The SPT writes the plan in four parts:

1. DepEd Vision, Mission and Core Values statement;
2. the school’s current situation, a narrative based on the School-Community Data Template and the SRC;
3. the Planning Worksheet;
4. monitoring and evaluation, a brief description of how progress will be checked.

All SPT members sign the SIP. The school then submits it to the SDO, and the guidebook says this is needed only “at the beginning of the three-year SIP cycle”. The guidebook describes submission, not an approval step. BEDP 2030, however, asks SDOs to quality-assure schools’ SIPs, and DepEd Memorandum No. 048, s. 2026 refers to the school’s “approved” SIP. Follow your division’s quality assurance process.

BEDP 2030 also states what the content should focus on. It found that “most School Improvement Plans (SIP) unevenly focused on improving school facilities rather than directly addressing issues on teaching and learning”. It asks SIPs to focus on improving learners’ and teachers’ performance. It also asks them to build a school climate and learning environment that upholds learners’ rights and well-being.

Step 8: Prepare the AIP. The SPT turns the SIP’s general objectives into the AIP for Year 1, using Annex 10, and attaches the project designs. Then check the chain: the AIP serves the SIP’s objectives, the SIP serves the Division goals, and the Division goals serve DepEd’s vision and mission.

The AIP is also where other plans meet. The cover order says projects on teaching and learning problems should involve the school’s LACs and that LAC activities should be aligned to the SIP or AIP. DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016 asks that the LAC plan be integrated or linked with the SIP or AIP; see the guide to DepEd Learning Action Cells. Under DepEd Memorandum No. 048, s. 2026, activities paid from the SIIF must be identified in the approved SIP and the AIP and must focus on literacy and numeracy. DO 014, s. 2026 asks that school-based CLCs appear in the AIP and allows a communication allowance for emergencies to be included in it.

Phase 3: Act (Steps 9 and 10)

Step 9: Test the solutions. Before a solution is used school-wide, the project team tries it on a small group, such as one section of a grade level. A team may test several solutions and keep the most effective one. It compares data before and after the test. If the solution does not work, the team checks how it was carried out and adjusts it.

If the test succeeds, the team shares the results with the process owners and asks for their feedback and support. For teaching and learning solutions, the team may share them through the school’s LACs. Solutions that cannot be tested on a small scale, such as building repairs, may skip this step.

Step 10: Roll out the solutions. The process owners, not the project team, apply the solution across the school, because they are the ones who will use it. In the guidebook’s example, the Grade 6 advisers who piloted a new attendance-checking process teach it to advisers of other grades. The project team keeps guiding them, provides training, and sets up a way for process owners to give feedback so the process keeps improving. In a small school, the project team and the process owners may be the same people.

Monitoring and the yearly loop (Step 11)

The SPT monitors each project at the middle and end of its implementation period, and more often for longer projects. It also helps project teams solve problems, especially early in a project. The project team reports on the Project Monitoring Report Form.

The progress reports feed the SRC presented at midyear and yearend, and the Project Monitoring Report goes to the SDO. Based on the recommendations, the SPT and project teams adjust the projects and write the next year’s AIP, starting again at Step 2. After Year 3, the SPT prepares the next SIP, and the SDO visits the school for a summative evaluation of the plan.

The SBM self-assessment now feeds the same loop. Under DO 007, s. 2024, the school assesses itself against the SBM checklist toward the end of the school year. During the learners’ vacation before the new year, it puts the results into its strategic plan as improvement areas and into its adjusted implementation plan as programs, projects or activities. The school head leads this monitoring as the school’s SBM focal person, a role the order says shall not be delegated.

The School Report Card (SRC)

The SRC gives stakeholders a snapshot of the school’s condition and performance. The guidebook is direct about its purpose. It is not for planning, which uses the School-Community Data Template, and not for accountability or the Performance-Based Bonus. In the guidebook’s words, “The SRC is for communication and advocacy”. Its objective is to increase community participation by showing the school’s status and the areas that need the community’s help. The guidebook cites World Bank research by Bruns, Filmer and Patrinos (2011) that stakeholder participation contributes to better school management.

What the SRC contains: three parts and 19 items

Annex 11, the SRC Summary of Information, gives each item’s description, reporting period and data source. Most data are already in the School-Community Data Template, where codes such as [SRC.1.] mark them. For item 18, the annex recommends the top three priority projects, with baseline data and, when applicable, endline data. Schools may add other information in the part where it fits.

Who prepares, signs and presents it

The SPT prepares the SRC in three steps.

1. Extract the data, using the SRC Summary of Information, from the School-Community Data Template, the Child-Friendly School Survey, school forms and the reports of project teams and other groups.
2. Analyze the data and write an interpretation below each graph or chart, in the language stakeholders understand most easily. The mother tongue may be used.
3. Lay out the graphs and interpretations using the basic template (Annex 12A) or the advanced one (Annex 12B).

The School Head, the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) President, the Student Body President and the Teacher Representative sign the SRC to certify its accuracy. The Annex 12A form labels two of these as the Parent-Teacher-Community Association (PTCA) President and the Student Government President.

The guidebook recommends reporting the SRC at least twice a school year, at midyear and yearend. It lists four ways to share it:

1. presentation at school meetings and assemblies (the guidebook names October and March);
2. posting on school or division websites, bulletin boards and other public areas;
3. space in the school journal or newsletter;
4. printed copies for the public.

The months come from the guidebook’s 2015 calendar. Under the three-term calendar of DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, School Year 2026–2027 runs from June 8, 2026 to April 8, 2027, so hold the two presentations at your school year’s actual midpoint and end. The SRC is one channel among several; SIP Communication Plan: Structure, Style and a Sample shows how to plan the year’s other messages around it.

How to write the SRC in plain language

Parents read the interpretation, not the chart. Write each one in two to four short sentences that say what changed, why, and what the school or the community can do.

Here is a weak interpretation of a dropout chart:

The dropout rate increased by 1.2 percentage points due to socio-economic factors.

Here is a clearer one:

Twelve learners stopped school this year, five more than last year. Most of them left to help their families at harvest time. Our teachers now visit these homes. We ask barangay officials and parents to tell us early when a child stops coming.

Keep bad results in the report. The four signatures certify accuracy, and a report that shows only good news cannot ask for the help the school needs. Use one idea per chart, label every axis, and translate the interpretation into the language most parents use.

Common mistakes in school improvement planning

• Copying targets instead of analyzing. An SIP that copies the Division’s targets or last cycle’s plan skips the gap analysis. The plan should start from the school’s own data.
• Writing a solution as a PIA. “No reading corner” names a missing item, not a problem. The problem is the reading level, and the reading corner is one possible solution, to be tested after the root cause is known.
• Too many PIAs. The guidebook sets no number, but each PIA taken on in a year needs a project team. Prioritize with the rubric and take on what the school can manage this year.
• Skipping learner voice. Asking only teachers why learners are absent gives one side of the story. The guidebook says listening should not be skipped, and home visits reach learners who are not in school.
• Mapping the ideal process. Flowcharts drawn in a meeting room often show what should happen. Observe the process as it actually runs.
• Planning around facilities only. BEDP 2030 found that most SIPs focused on facilities. Facilities matter, but a plan should also act on teaching, learning and the learning environment.
• Letting the project team do everything. The process owners must run the solution after the test, or it stops when the project ends.
• Filing the plan after submission. An SIP that is not monitored at midyear and yearend, reported in the SRC and used to write the next AIP is a compliance document, not a plan.

Who does what in the SIP

In practice, the school head’s year follows this order.

1. Gather and check the data, complete the School-Community Data Template, and draft the SRC.
2. Form and convene the SPT for orientation, vision sharing and the timetable.
3. Present the SRC and the gap analysis, rate the improvement areas, and record the PIAs and general objectives.
4. Form project teams and make sure each one listens to learners, observes the process and finds the root cause.
5. Review the project designs with the SPT, sign the SIP, send it to the SDO, and prepare the AIP.
6. Support the pilot tests and the roll-out by process owners.
7. Monitor at midyear and yearend, present the SRC to stakeholders, and start the next AIP at Step 2.

PPSSH strands and Career Stage 1 indicators for school improvement planning

Career Stage 1 indicators ask aspiring school heads to know and understand the process, and to communicate and involve the community. The domain guides explain each domain in full: Domain 1, Leading Strategically and Domain 5, Building Connections. The app’s PPSSH guide lists every indicator.

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 school improvement planning, expect stems that place you at one step of the cycle and ask for the best next action. The best answer usually follows the order of the steps, uses evidence and learner voice, and gives each person the right role. The three items below are original practice items, not actual or recalled NASH items.

Question 1

Indicator 1.6.1, Learner voice. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

You are the school head of a public elementary school. Your School-Community Planning Team rated frequent absences in Grade 5 as a very high priority improvement area. At the project team’s first meeting, a teacher proposes prizes for learners with perfect attendance, and the parent representative offers to pay for them. The team has the attendance records but has not yet spoken with any of the absent learners. What should the project team do next?

• A. Accept the parent’s offer and start the prize program this term, since the rubric already rated the problem very high and early action shows the community that the school is responding.
• B. Survey all Grade 5 learners on why classmates miss school, present the results with the attendance records to the planning team, and then choose among the proposed solutions.
• C. Interview the frequently absent learners and their parents, with home visits where needed, observe how absences are now checked and followed up, and find the root cause before choosing.
• D. Ask the Grade 5 advisers why their learners are absent, list the reasons they give, and adopt the solution that most of the advisers agree will work best for their classes.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). It jumps from the priority rating to a solution and skips the whole analysis. A prize does nothing for a learner who stays home to work or care for a sibling.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). It listens to learners and uses data, but a survey of all learners misses the absent ones, and the team still skips process observation and root cause analysis.
• C (3 points, Relational). It hears the learners who matter most to the PIA, including through home visits, checks the actual process, and finds the root cause before any solution is chosen.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). It asks the process owners, which has value, but it replaces learner voice with teachers’ views and adopts a solution without finding the root cause.

Why. Indicator 1.6.1 asks aspiring school heads to understand how learner voice informs decisions toward school improvement. The DO 44, s. 2015 guidebook says listening to learners and stakeholders “should not be skipped”. It calls for home visits when the learners concerned cannot come to school, and it requires direct observation of the process before root cause analysis. Solutions come only in Step 5.

Indicator 1.6.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of utilizing learner voice to inform policy development and decision-making towards school improvement.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, School Improvement Plan Guidebook, Activities 3.3 to 3.6 and Annex 6.

Question 2

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

A project team at your school tested a new routine for checking reading progress in one Grade 3 section for one term. The share of learners reading at grade level in that section rose clearly, while the other Grade 3 sections did not change. The team leader asks how the school should now use the routine. Under the Enhanced School Improvement Planning process, what is the best next step?

• A. Share the test results with the Grade 3 advisers, who will apply the routine in their own sections, while the project team trains them and sets up a way to collect their feedback.
• B. Assign the project team members to run the new routine in every Grade 3 section themselves, since they designed it and know exactly how each part of it should be done.
• C. Report the result in the next School Report Card and wait for next year’s Annual Implementation Plan before the other Grade 3 sections start using the routine.
• D. Send the test results to the Schools Division Office and wait for its written approval before any other Grade 3 section adopts the routine in its own classes.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (3 points, Relational). The advisers are the process owners. They take over the routine with the team’s training and a feedback channel, so the solution continues after the project ends.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). It spreads a tested solution, but through the wrong people. When the project ends, the advisers who must use the routine have not made it their own.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Reporting results in the SRC is right, but delaying a proven solution for a year leaves learners in the other sections without it.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). The guidelines have no division approval step for rolling out a tested solution. School-based management places this decision in the school.

Why. Indicator 1.2.1 asks for an understanding of the phases of developing and implementing school plans. In the Act phase, Step 9 tests a solution on a small group and Step 10 rolls it out. The guidebook says roll-out is done “not by the Project Team, but by the concerned stakeholders (process owners)”. The project team keeps guiding and training them.

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, School Improvement Plan Guidebook, Steps 9 and 10.

Question 3

Indicator 5.4.1, Communication. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

Your school is preparing its midyear School Report Card. The dropout chart shows that dropouts rose over the last three years, and learner interviews found that most learners who left had to help with work at home. A teacher suggests leaving the dropout chart out because parents may blame the teachers at the assembly. What should you do?

• A. Leave out the dropout chart this time and present the gains in enrollment and reading, then discuss the dropout problem privately with the teachers of the grades concerned.
• B. Include the dropout chart without any written comment, so that parents can draw their own conclusions at the assembly and no teacher is named or blamed.
• C. Include the dropout chart with a detailed technical analysis of the rates and causes in English, and answer any questions that parents raise during the assembly.
• D. Include the chart with a short interpretation in the language parents use, explain what the school is doing about it, and say how parents and the barangay can help.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Hiding the data defeats the SRC’s purpose and conflicts with the signatories’ certification that the report is accurate.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). It keeps the data, but a chart without interpretation does not tell parents what it means or what they can do.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). It reports and explains the data, but technical English limits who understands it, and it does not ask for the community’s help.
• D (3 points, Relational). It reports the result honestly, explains it in plain language, shows the school’s response, and turns the report into a request for specific community action.

Why. Indicator 5.4.1 asks for competent communication with parents and other stakeholders. The DO 44, s. 2015 guidebook says the SRC is for communication and advocacy, and that its interpretations use the language stakeholders understand most easily. The school head, PTA president, student body president and teacher representative sign it to certify its accuracy.

Indicator 5.4.1: Demonstrate competent skills in speaking and writing, as well as in utilizing communication platforms, in communicating with teachers, learners, parents and other stakeholders.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, School Improvement Plan Guidebook, Communicating to Stakeholders and Annex 11.

More items scored this way are in the NASH practice questions with answers and the app’s timed practice sets.

Frequently asked questions

What is a School Improvement Plan in DepEd?

A School Improvement Plan is a three-year plan of specific interventions that a public school, with its community and other stakeholders, carries out to improve access, quality and governance. It is prepared by the School-Community Planning Team under DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 and is carried out each year through an Annual Implementation Plan.

What is the difference between the SIP and the AIP?

The SIP covers three school years and sets the school’s PIAs, general objectives and root causes, while the AIP covers one school year. The AIP lists the year’s projects with their objectives, outputs, activities, persons responsible, schedule and budget, and is rewritten each year from the monitoring results.

Is DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 still in effect?

Yes, DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 is still in effect as of October 2026. No later order replaces it, and DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024 cites it. DepEd Memoranda No. 073, s. 2025 and No. 048, s. 2026 on the School Innovation and Improvement Fund still use the SIP, the AIP and PIAs. BEDP 2030 plans a revised SIP policy, but none has been issued.

Who are the members of the School-Community Planning Team?

The School-Community Planning Team has at least seven members, led by the school head. The others are a student, a teacher, a parent, a barangay or LGU representative, a BDRRMC member and a School Child Protection Committee member. At least one member must sit on the School Governing Council, and the total should be an odd number.

What are the parts of the School Report Card?

The School Report Card has three parts: the school profile, performance indicators on access, quality and governance, and the status of school projects. Together they hold 19 items, from enrollment to other stakeholders’ accomplishments. The SPT prepares it, four signatories certify it, and it is reported at least at midyear and yearend.

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:

• RA 9155 Duties of DepEd School Heads: 12 Areas Explained
• Leadership vs Management for School Heads: Five Practices
• DepEd Revised SBM: DO 007, s. 2024 and the Self-Assessment
• Root Cause Analysis for the DepEd School Improvement Plan
• Organizational Diagnosis Models in Schools: 7S, SWOT, PESTLE
• Change Management in Schools: A Guide for DepEd School Heads
• DepEd ILAW Lesson Plan, DO 016, s. 2026: School Head’s Role
• DepEd Grading System, DO 015, s. 2026: School Head’s Role
• DepEd Contextualization, Localization and Indigenization
• DepEd Instructional Supervision: Observing and Coaching
• DepEd Learning Action Cell (LAC) Guidelines: DO 35, s. 2016
• DepEd PMES for Teachers: DM 089, s. 2025 for School Heads
• DepEd Enhanced ALS, Inclusive Education and Special Programs
• Human Resource Management for DepEd School Heads
• DepEd School MOOE: Allowable Expenses and Liquidation
• RA 6713 for DepEd School Heads: Ethics and Internal Control
• Leadership Styles of School Heads: What the Evidence Says
• Instructional Leadership for DepEd School Heads
• Principal, Head Teacher or Teacher-in-Charge in DepEd
• OPCRF for DepEd School Heads in 2026: What Applies Now
• RA 9155 at 25: Why Shared Governance Has Not Happened
• Stakeholder Analysis for DepEd School Heads: A Guide
• SIP Communication Plan: Structure, Style and a Sample
• 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

• DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, Guidelines on the Enhanced School Improvement Planning (SIP) Process and the School Report Card (SRC), with the enclosed School Improvement Plan Guidebook and Annexes 1A to 12B.
• DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024, Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Revised School-Based Management (SBM) System, including its Annex A self-assessment checklist.
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2022, Adoption of the Basic Education Development Plan 2030.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 073, s. 2025, Allocation and Release of the School Innovation and Improvement Fund for Fiscal Year 2025.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 048, s. 2026, Allocation and Release of the School Innovation and Improvement Fund to Non-Implementing Unit Public Schools for Fiscal Year 2026.
• DepEd Order No. 014, s. 2026, Guidelines on Learning Continuity in Emergencies.
• DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016, The Learning Action Cell as a K to 12 Basic Education Program School-Based Continuing Professional Development Strategy.
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025, Administration of the National Assessment for School Heads.
• Republic Act No. 9155, Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, Section 7.
• DepEd Regional Office VIII, Regional Memorandum No. 301, s. 2023, Inputs in the Formulation of the 2023-2028 School Improvement Plans.
• Barbara Bruns, Deon Filmer and Harry Anthony Patrinos, Making Schools Work: New Evidence on Accountability Reforms (World Bank, 2011).

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 and its School Improvement Plan Guidebook; DepEd Orders No. 007, s. 2024, No. 024, s. 2022 and No. 014, s. 2026; DepEd Memoranda No. 073, s. 2025 and No. 048, s. 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020 and the PPSSH; DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025; RA 9155; Bruns, Filmer and Patrinos (2011).