# ILAW Lesson Plan: How to Write One, With Samples

How to write a DepEd ILAW lesson plan under DO 016, s. 2026: each part of the template, revising an old DLL, AI rules, and three complete sample plans.

This is the Markdown copy of [ILAW Lesson Plan: How to Write One, With Samples](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ilaw-lesson-plan-sample-how-to-write), an article on the NASH Reviewer Blog by Mark Anthony Llego, published Nov 14, 2026. Topics: School leadership, Aspiring school heads. NASH Reviewer is an independent practice platform not affiliated with DepEd, BHROD, or NEAP.

An ILAW lesson plan is any plan in which four elements are "evident and aligned": the Intentions of the lesson, the Learning Experience, the way the teacher Assesses Learning, and the Ways Forward after it. That is the test in [DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/06/04/june-4-2026-do-016-s-2026-guidelines-on-lesson-planning-and-learning-design/), the Guidelines on Lesson Planning and Learning Design (para. 11). The Department of Education (DepEd) has no required template. Annex B of the order and DepEd's orientation template are references a teacher may use as they are, shorten, or replace with a format of their own.

What separates a weak ILAW plan from a strong one is how specific each element is, not its format: objectives that can be seen in what learners write or say, checks placed inside the lesson rather than only at its end, and a reflection that names evidence and a next step. The same test applies to a plan converted from an old Daily Lesson Log (DLL) or Detailed Lesson Plan (DLP), to one adapted from a DepEd lesson exemplar or a lesson found online, and to one drafted with help from artificial intelligence (AI), which DO 016 keeps out of the teaching decisions themselves (para. 25).

The policy behind the plan, its rubric, and how school heads review and coach are explained in [DepEd ILAW Lesson Plan, DO 016, s. 2026: School Head's Role](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-lesson-planning-do-016-s-2026). The old DLL and DLP formats were allowed only until the end of Term 1 of School Year (SY) 2026-2027 (para. 43), so every plan from Term 2, which began on September 16, 2026, is an ILAW plan.

## Key findings

- **Sufficiency is the only test.** A plan is enough "when the learning intentions, learning experience, assessment approach, and ways forward are evident and aligned", and Annex B "shall not be interpreted as a required national template" (DO 016, s. 2026, para. 11). The Bureau of Learning Delivery's (BLD) guide to ILAW-aligned formats puts it plainly: "As long as ILAW is present (even if named differently), it's good!"
- **Only one component is optional.** Extended learning opportunities "may" be given (para. 7(d)(ii)); every other component of the framework is a "shall". Teachers "shall not be required to include components beyond those prescribed" (para. 10).
- **Old plans are revised, not rewritten.** BLD's guide to revising DLLs and DLPs keeps the old plan and asks five things: check the intentions, review the learning experience, strengthen assessment, add ways forward, and simplify.
- **Checks belong inside the lesson.** "Checks for understanding shall not be limited to the assessment portion of the lesson plan" (DO 016, Table 1), and formative assessment "shall not be used for grade computation" ([DepEd Order No. 015, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/06/04/june-4-2026-do-015-s-2026-revised-guidelines-on-classroom-assessment-grading-system-and-awards-and-recognition-for-the-k-to-12-basic-education-program/), para. 15).
- **AI may not make the teaching decisions.** It may not define objectives, unpack competencies or design the learning experience; every use is declared; and "fully AI-generated lesson plans shall not be allowed" (DO 016, paras. 23 and 25).
- **Lesson exemplars are references to adapt.** Teachers may use them but "remain fully responsible" for a plan that fits their learners (para. 22). The exemplars are labeled by quarter and week, so the term and week come from the budget of work: the Grade 5 Mathematics exemplar for Quarter 3, Lesson 5 teaches competencies the budget of work places in Term 3, Weeks 1 to 2.
- **Design patterns are tools, not rules.** BLD names five (6 E's, 5 A's, experiential learning, explicit instruction, inquiry learning), says "No single pattern is best", and reminds teachers that "Not everything has to be a game, groupwork, or integrated with technology."

## What an ILAW lesson plan must contain, and what it may leave out

Paragraph 7 of DO 016 lists four elements and nine components. The verbs decide what is required.

| Element | Component | Required? | What the order says (para. 7) |
|---|---|---|---|
| I: Intentions | Learning competencies | Yes | Teachers "shall identify the learning competencies to be targeted during the learning session" |
| I: Intentions | Learning objectives | Yes | Teachers "shall unpack, cluster, or sequence learning competencies into clear, focused, and manageable learning objectives" |
| L: Learning Experience | Learning resources | Yes, with an alternative for home learning | Resources "aligned with the learning objectives"; alternatives "shall likewise be prepared" for *Hinay* level situations |
| L: Learning Experience | Pre-lesson activity | Yes | "brief introductory activities, routines, or check-ins" |
| L: Learning Experience | Lesson flow | Yes | Learning design principles applied "throughout the learning session" |
| L: Learning Experience | Integration and contextualization | Yes, but Annex B allows "N/A" | Teachers "shall identify opportunities" to connect lessons, technology and local contexts |
| A: Assessing Learning | Formative assessments | Yes | "formative checks throughout the learning session" |
| W: Ways Forward | Reflective practice | Yes, after each lesson or session | Teachers "shall reflect on the teaching experience and evidence of learning" and name next steps |
| W: Ways Forward | Extended learning opportunities | No | Teachers "may provide additional learning experiences within or beyond the classroom" |

One more line is required whenever it applies: "any use of AI assistance in lesson planning shall be declared" (para. 25).

What a plan may leave out:

- **Anything outside the framework.** No Remarks row, no separate log for each day, and no objectives sorted into knowledge, skills and attitudes. The order asks only that objectives be "clear, focused, and manageable" (para. 7(a)(ii)), and it says excessive detail "shall be avoided" (para. 10).
- **Prompts that do not apply.** Annex B's own note says teachers "may use brief notes, integrated responses, or omit sections that are not applicable".
- **The curriculum standards, if the teacher does not find them useful.** The order's framework names the competency, not the standards (para. 7(a)(i)), and the components it prescribes are all a teacher can be required to write (para. 10). Annex B also asks for "the content or performance standards applicable to the sessions", and BLD's guide to ILAW-aligned formats treats them as an extra: "You are also free to keep extra details such as the content/performance standards, and talking prompts, as long as you find it useful".
- **A plan for every day.** One plan may cover several sessions. Annex B has a "No. of Sessions" row, a competency "may span several lessons" (para. 7(a)(i)), and BLD's format guide shows a four-day Grade 4 Science plan under the heading "Weekly LPs". The reflection is still written after each session (para. 7(d)(i)).

A plan shared by teachers of the same grade counts for each of them, "provided that all participating teachers ... understand the shared lesson plan and are capable of delivering it effectively" (para. 28). A multigrade teacher may write one integrated plan for two or three grades (para. 14), as in Sample 3 below.

## DepEd's sample lesson plan template, part by part

DepEd publishes the template in two versions. Annex B of DO 016 is the official one. DepEd's copy for teacher orientations, offered as the "Lesson Plan Guide" on the Learning Systems site that DepEd's Learning Systems Strand designed, and described there as "a guide, not a checklist", has the same rows with small changes:

| Point | Annex B of DO 016, s. 2026 | DepEd's orientation template |
|---|---|---|
| Third element | "Assessing Learning" | "Assessment" |
| Flow prompt | Ends "Note, not all principles are expected in every lesson." | The note is not printed |
| Integration row | "Opportunities for integration and contextualization", with "local context" among the things to connect to | "Opportunities for integration", without "local context" |
| Reflections | Ends with "Reflections may be written in brief notes, bullets, or annotations." | That sentence is not printed |
| Rubric | Annex A, nine statements | Nine statements, titled "Rubric for Lesson Planning Self-Check and/or Peer Coaching"; the fifth drops "and contextualization", and the ninth begins "The following interventions" instead of "Ways forward and described interventions" |

Where the two differ, Annex B is part of the order, so keep contextualization in the plan. The rubric's nine statements, and how a school head uses them, are in the [DO 016 guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-lesson-planning-do-016-s-2026#how-to-review-a-lesson-plan-under-the-new-rubric).

The examples below all come from one lesson in the Grade 6 Mathematics budget of work for Term 2, Week 3: "Illustrate and explain the relationships between percentages, fractions, and decimals" and "Identify and explain the uses of percentages." The plan covers two 60-minute sessions shared by the four Grade 6 teachers of a central school.

### The header rows

| Row | Weak | Strong |
|---|---|---|
| Lesson Title | Percent | Percent, Fraction, Decimal: One Amount, Three Names |
| Learning Area/s | (left blank) | Mathematics |
| Name of Teacher/s | One name, though four teachers use the plan | The four Grade 6 Mathematics teachers who wrote and share the plan |
| Grade Level and Section | Grade 6 | Grade 6, all four sections |
| No. of Sessions | (left blank) | 2 sessions of 60 minutes; Term 2, Week 3 |
| References "(books, websites, toolkits, etc.)" | Internet; module | Grade 6 Mathematics budget of work, Term 2, Week 3; the school's Grade 6 Mathematics textbook, with pages; grid sheets the teachers made |
| Declaration of AI use: "Cite how AI was used in the formulation of the lesson plan." | Left blank, though a chatbot wrote the word problems | "None." Where AI was used, a declaration like the one in Sample 2 |

The header takes a minute, and two rows carry weight. The number of sessions tells a reader how much the plan must hold. The AI row is the declaration para. 25 requires; write "None." when no AI was used rather than leaving it blank.

### Intentions

| Part | What the template asks | Weak | Strong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Learning Competency and Curriculum Standards | "Write the competency/ies from the curriculum that we are targeting, and the content or performance standards applicable to the sessions." | Percentages and their uses. | The two competencies, copied as the budget of work prints them. Content standard: "percentages, and their relationships with fractions and decimals". Performance standard: "relate percentages to fractions and decimals". |
| Learning Objectives | "Write the smaller knowledge, skills, or tasks from the competency that the learners will work on and be able to show by the end of the sessions." | At the end of the lesson, 100% of the learners are expected to: a. define percent; b. appreciate the importance of percent in daily life; c. answer the activity with 75% accuracy. | Session 1: shade a given percent (such as 35%) on a 10-by-10 grid and write the same amount as a fraction in lowest terms and as a decimal; explain in one sentence why 25%, 1/4 and 0.25 name the same amount. Session 2: say what a percent compares in a given use (a discount sign, a test score, a phone battery). |
| Learner Context | "Write your observations of your learners, and how they have been performing or responding to learning experiences recently. Include strengths, interests, and possible barriers to learning." | The learners are active and participative. | In the Weeks 1 and 2 checks on ratio, about a quarter of each class still wrote "3 boys to 4 girls" as 3/4 of the class. Most change tenths and hundredths to decimals easily but stall on fourths and twentieths. Many buy for their families at the public market, where sale signs show percents. Two learners read below grade level; one has low vision and uses large print. |

The weak objectives fail in three ways. "Define" is smaller than the competency, "appreciate" cannot be seen in a 60-minute session, and "75% accuracy" describes a score, not a skill. The strong objectives can each be checked by looking at what learners write or say.

Learner Context is not one of the nine components in para. 7, but it is where the order's demand that objectives fit "learner readiness" (para. 7(a)(ii)) becomes visible. A good note names evidence (last week's checks), interests (the market), and barriers (reading level, eyesight), and every later part of the plan should answer at least one of them. For how to unpack a broad competency into objectives, see [From Curriculum to Lesson: Unpacking and Budget of Work](https://nash.com.ph/blog/curriculum-to-lesson-unpacking-budget-of-work).

### Learning Experience

| Part | What the template asks | Weak | Strong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Lesson | "Describe how you will help the learners get ready for the lesson." | Prayer, checking of attendance, motivation: the class sings a song. | Recall Warmup, 5 minutes: three review items from earlier weeks (3/4 as a decimal, a part-to-whole ratio, 0.6 as a fraction) and two preview items ("What does '20% OFF' on a market sign mean?"). Go over the item most learners missed. |
| Flow | "Describe the activities that you can implement in 1 or more sessions to meet your intentions. Apply the Learning Design Principles..." | Discussion of percent. Group activity. Generalization. Application. | 1. State the goal: one amount, three names. 2. The teacher shades 35 of 100 squares and thinks aloud: 35/100, then 7/20, then 0.35. 3. The class does 25% and 60% together on grid sheets. Check: everyone holds up a grid. 4. Pairs do four more, including 5% and 50%. 5. If several pairs write 5% as 0.5, stop and reteach with the grid before going on. |
| Learning Resources | "List down the learning resources ... Ensure that they are available and inclusive. Include options and alternatives in case of emergencies." | Module, PowerPoint, TV. | Grid sheets (one large-print set), colored pencils, photos of three market sale signs, textbook pages. If classes move to *Hinay*: a two-page print version with one worked example on a grid and six items, sent home. |
| Opportunities for integration and contextualization | "Write down any possibilities to meaningfully connect to another learning area, special topic, local context, or technology. Write N/A if none." | Values: cooperation. ICT: PowerPoint. EsP. Araling Panlipunan. | Local context: sale signs at the public market and the battery percent on a phone. Other learning areas: N/A this week. |

The strong flow does three things the weak one cannot. It shows the order of teacher modeling, guided practice and pair work, which is the Scaffolding principle. It marks where the teacher checks. And it says what the teacher does if the check goes badly, which is what the order means by adjusting to "learner responses, questions, misconceptions, and emerging needs rather than through rigid adherence to the sequence of activities plotted in the lesson plan" (para. 7(b)(iii)). The flow does not need a separate box for each Learning Design Principle: Annex B's prompts are a guide, and "not all principles are expected in every lesson."

The weak integration row lists four areas and connects none of them. "N/A" is the better answer when nothing fits. The *Hinay* alternative matters because the order requires it (para. 7(b)(i)). Under [DepEd Order No. 014, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/06/04/june-4-2026-do-014-s-2026-guidelines-on-learning-continuity-in-emergencies/) on learning continuity, print modules are "Primarily used during *Hinay*" (Annex C), so a short printed version of the lesson's practice fits. While [DepEd Memorandum No. 064, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/10/26/october-26-2026-dm-064-s-2026-anticipatory-action-preparedness-and-protective-measures-for-the-2026-2027-super-el-nino/) on the 2026-2027 El Niño is in effect, field offices and schools "shall authorize flexible lesson pacing, modified task requirements, and formative assessment accommodations tailored to prevailing 4H levels" (Encl., Sec. 5.2.1), and schools may not require families to buy printed materials (Sec. 5.2.3). The plan's *Hinay* alternative is where those adjustments are written, and the school prints it.

### Assessing Learning

| Part | What the template asks | Weak | Strong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Formative Assessment | "Create a task, activity or questions to assess learning and provide feedback every now and then. Include ways for learners to ask for guidance or support throughout each session. Remember to provide appropriate accommodations..." | Quiz: 10 items at the end of the period. Passing score: 75%. | Check 1, during guided practice: learners hold up their grids, and the teacher notes who shades 50 squares for 5%. Check 2, at the end of Session 1: a three-item exit ticket, sorted into "got it", "almost" and "not yet" to plan Session 2. A learner who is stuck turns a help card to its red side. Accommodations: large print, an oral answer instead of a written one, fewer items on the same skill. |

DO 015, s. 2026 asks teachers to "integrate assessment before, during, and after instruction" (para. 14) and keeps formative results out of grades (para. 15). A 10-item quiz at the end can stay, but alone it tells the teacher too late who needed help. The strong row also answers the template's two easily missed prompts: how learners ask for help, and how learners with different needs show what they know. DO 015's formative assessment cycle, Elicit, Student response, Recognize and Use (ESRU), is explained in the [DO 015 guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-classroom-assessment-do-015-s-2026).

### Ways Forward

| Part | What the template asks | Weak | Strong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extended learning opportunities | "Suggest other learning experiences outside the classroom/ class hours that learners may want to access to reinforce what they have learned, to spark their curiosities further, or that may provide them support in their areas of difficulty." | Answer pages 45 to 47 of the textbook. | Optional: list three percents seen at home or in the market this week and say what each compares. Learners sorted "not yet" meet the teacher for 10 minutes with grid sheets at the start of Session 2. |
| Reflections | "Think about what you need to change for the next session based on what happened today... What would you like your instructional coach to help you with?" | The lesson was successful. The learners participated actively. | Written after Session 1: 27 of 36 got all three exit-ticket items. Seven wrote 5% as 0.5, so Session 2 opens with 5% and 50% side by side on the grid for those seven. The market photos worked; learners asked how much "20% OFF" saves on a ₱150 item, which fits Session 2. For my coach: please watch my guided practice; I think I talk too long. |

BLD's guide to revising old plans notes that "Many plans stop after assessment", and that a teacher "can write initial ideas before you implement the lesson ... and then add more notes after delivering the lesson." The strong reflection names evidence (27 of 36, the seven who wrote 0.5), a next step tied to it, something learners were curious about, and one request for the coach. That is all the order asks of a reflection (para. 7(d)(i)), and Annex B says brief notes or bullets are enough.

## How to turn an old DLL, DLP or lesson exemplar into an ILAW plan

BLD's guide to revising DLLs and DLPs opens: "No need to start over if you have existing DLLs, DLPs, or other lesson exemplars." It changes the question teachers ask, from "tama ba yung template?" (is the template right?) to "nakikita ko ba ang ILAW?" (can I see ILAW in it?). Its five steps:

| BLD's step | What to do | Questions from the guide |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Check the intentions | Read the competencies, standards and objectives | "Are they clear? Aligned with other parts of the lesson? Aligned with learners' current capacities and contexts?" |
| 2. Review the learning experience | Read the procedure as another teacher would | "If another teacher read this, will they be able to carry out the lesson?" "Do the activities support learners to achieve the goals?" |
| 3. Strengthen assessment | Add checks inside the procedure | "Find the moments where you can check the learner's understanding and engagement." |
| 4. Add ways forward | Write how you will reteach or extend, then add notes after teaching | "ILAW asks us to reflect, 'what happens next?'" |
| 5. Simplify if possible | Cut repeated information | "Avoid duplicate information or excessive detail. Keep only what supports teaching!" |

The guide's example is a four-day DLL in Filipino on the structures of the local community, the same lesson BLD's other guides show as a Grade 2 Makabansa plan. Its revised version is much shorter, and under Assessing Learning it adds a list of possible misconceptions to watch for, a useful habit for any plan.

### Where each old part goes

| Old part | Daily Lesson Log or Detailed Lesson Plan (DO 42, s. 2016) | Lesson exemplar | Goes to in ILAW |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standards and competencies | I. Objectives: A. Content Standards; B. Performance Standards; C. Learning Competencies/Objectives, with the competency code | I. Curriculum Content, Standards, and Lesson Competencies, A to C | Intentions. Replace with the competency and standards in the term's budget of work. |
| Topic | II. Content | I.D. Content | Lesson title, or drop |
| Resources | III. Learning Resources: teacher's guide, learner's materials and textbook pages, other resources | II. Learning Resources | Learning resources and References. Add the *Hinay* alternative. |
| Opening | IV.A. Reviewing previous lesson; B. Establishing a purpose | III.A. Activating Prior Knowledge; B. Establishing Lesson Purpose | Pre-lesson, and the first step of the flow (make the objective clear) |
| Body | IV.C. to H., from presenting examples to making generalizations | III.C. Developing and Deepening Understanding; D. Making Generalizations | Flow. Mark the checks inside it. |
| Evaluation | IV.I. Evaluating learning | IV.A. Evaluating Learning | Assessing Learning, as one check among several |
| Follow-up | IV.J. Additional activities for application or remediation | (none) | Extended learning opportunities |
| Notes | V. Remarks | IV.B. Teacher's Remarks | Drop, or fold into the reflection |
| Reflection | VI. Reflection: number of learners who earned 80%, remediation counts, what worked, what help is needed | IV.C. Teacher's Reflection | Reflections, with a next step tied to evidence |
| Not in the old format | | | Learner Context; Declaration of AI use; integration and contextualization (the exemplar has an Integration row) |

Three changes matter more than the relabeling. First, the competency. All grades from Kindergarten to Grade 10 follow the MATATAG Curriculum in SY 2026-2027 ([DepEd Order No. 010, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/07/23/july-23-2024-do-010-s-2024-policy-guidelines-on-the-implementation-of-the-matatag-curriculum/), para. 8), so a DLL written for the 2016 curriculum may target a competency that has moved to another grade or term, or no longer exists. Check it against the budget of work. Second, the checks. A DLL whose only check is "I. Evaluating learning" at the end needs checks added inside the flow; DO 42, s. 2016 itself expected three formative assessments within the procedure. Third, the reflection. The old count of learners who scored 80% is evidence, but it becomes a reflection only when it leads to a decision about the next session.

### A worked example: DepEd's Grade 5 Mathematics exemplar, Quarter 3, Lesson 5

DepEd's lesson exemplar for Mathematics Grade 5, Quarter 3, Lesson 5 (marked for SY 2025-2026) spans four days. It targets two competencies, "Multiply decimal numbers with decimal parts of up to 2 decimal places" and "Estimate each of two decimal numbers to the nearest whole number to estimate their product". The Grade 5 Mathematics budget of work places both in Term 3, Weeks 1 to 2.

Read against ILAW, most of the exemplar is already there. It has standards and competencies, a quiz bee and a "turn and talk" routine that work as checks, worked examples, a learning activity sheet, and a teacher's reflection guide. A teacher adapting it adds a learner context, a *Hinay* version of the practice, an AI declaration if AI was used, and the teacher's own reflection after each session.

One step needs changing. The exemplar teaches estimation by rounding each factor "into a single non-zero digit", and notes that "There are other rules in doing estimation of products for decimals". Under that rule, 174.75 × 3.78 is estimated as 200 × 4 = 800. The competency asks learners to round "to the nearest whole number", which gives 175 × 4 = 700. A teacher who uses the exemplar as written teaches a rule the competency does not ask for. This is what BLD's quality check, "Is it aligned with the curriculum?", catches. Sample 1 below teaches the competency's rule.

## Which lesson design pattern fits which lesson

BLD's guide to lesson design patterns describes them as "reusable sets of activities" that "help us build lessons quickly", and says: "No single pattern is best. Different lessons require different approaches." DO 016 does not require any pattern. The five the guide starts with:

| Pattern | Phases | BLD: best for | Where it sits in ILAW |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 E's | Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate, Extend | "introducing new concepts, investigation, & discovery" | Engage is the pre-lesson; Explore to Elaborate are the flow; Evaluate is one check among several; Extend is an extended learning opportunity |
| 5 A's | Activate, Acquire, Apply, Assess, Adapt | "routine classroom lessons, moving knowledge to application" | Activate is the pre-lesson; Acquire and Apply are the flow; Assess is a check; Adapt is the next step in Ways Forward |
| Experiential learning | Experience, Reflect, Conceptualize, Apply | "connecting lessons to real life and contexts" | The whole cycle is the flow; the Reflect phase is the learners' reflection, not the teacher's |
| Explicit instruction | I Do, We Do, You Do | "teaching new competencies & foundational skills" | The flow; the check sits at the end of We Do, before learners work alone |
| Inquiry learning | Question, Investigate, Analyze, Share | "building curiosity and critical thinking" | The question is the pre-lesson; Investigate and Analyze are the flow; Share is a check |

The guide's closing slide reduces this to a choice: to build curiosity and discovery, try the 6 E's; to structure everyday lessons, the 5 A's; to learn through experience, experiential learning; to teach foundational skills, explicit instruction; to develop critical thinking, inquiry learning. Its sample lessons are short: comparing the areas of two gardens (6 E's), identifying the main idea (5 A's), preparing a sandwich (experiential), using context clues (explicit instruction), and asking "Bakit binabaha ang ating barangay?" (Why does our barangay flood?) for inquiry.

Two cautions apply. A pattern's assessment phase is not the only check: in the 6 E's, "Evaluate" can become a single quiz near the end, which the order's Table 1 rules out as the only check. And no pattern replaces the learning area's own approaches. DO 010, s. 2024 suggests, among others, inquiry-based approaches for Science, discovery and problem-based learning for Mathematics, and explicit teaching and task-based instruction for English (Annex 5, Table 1), and it leaves teachers "the flexibility to employ other approaches". The three samples below use explicit instruction, the 5 A's, and inquiry. BLD's 50 Pedagogy Cards, short strategies such as Recall Warmup, Stoplight and Exit Tickets, fit inside any pattern; they are explained in [DepEd Pedagogy Cards: 50 Teaching Strategies by Key Stage](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-pedagogy-cards-teaching-strategies).

## Lessons found online or drafted with AI

### What you may use

DO 016 lets teachers "use lesson guides, lesson exemplars, or instructional materials provided by the Central Office (CO), ROs, SDOs, or external partners as reference materials, provided that they remain fully responsible for preparing lesson plans responsive to their learners' needs and contexts." Such materials "may be modified or adapted" (para. 22). BLD's guide to lessons found online widens the list of sources: "A worksheet, a social media post, an AI lesson planner, a video. These are sources of inspiration." It adds: "Technology can help. But instructional decisions remain yours."

### What you must check

The guide gives four quality questions: "Is it accurate? Is it developmentally-appropriate? Is it aligned with the curriculum? Is it culturally relevant?" Then it asks the teacher to:

- **Adapt it:** "Adjust the language, examples, materials, time/pace, difficulty." An activity "may work elsewhere, but will it work for your learners? Context matters."
- **Add assessment:** "Many online resources lack assessments that are feasible for your classroom."
- **Plan ways forward:** "What will I do with learner responses?"
- **Run the ILAW test:** Does it support my intentions? Does the learning experience fit my learners? Does it gather evidence? Does it identify ways forward?

The Grade 5 exemplar's estimation rule shows why the curriculum question comes first. An online lesson needs the same check, plus a look at its examples. A lesson built around a shopping mall, snow, or dollars may need local equivalents before it reaches a barangay school.

### What AI may and may not do in a lesson plan

DO 016 applies [DepEd Order No. 003, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/02/20/february-20-2026-do-003-s-2026-foundational-guidelines-on-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-basic-education/), DepEd's AI guidelines, to lesson planning in three categories (para. 25):

| Category | The order's words | In a lesson plan, for example |
|---|---|---|
| Prohibited | AI "shall not be used for core instructional decision-making, including defining learning objectives, unpacking competencies, designing learning experiences and instructional strategies (i.e. the ILAW Framework), and/or making critical judgments in response to learner needs" | Asking a chatbot for the objectives, the activities, or which learners need remediation |
| Limited | "support tasks and functions (i.e. rephrasing, organizing, or refining text) only after key instructional decisions (i.e. the ILAW Framework) have already been made and after consultation with co-teachers, instructional leaders, or relevant stakeholders has been maximized" | Tightening the wording of instructions the teacher already wrote, after planning with the grade-level team |
| Guided | "grammar and spelling checks, improving clarity of language, formatting support, and translation assistance", reviewed before use | Checking the grammar of a reading text the teacher wrote, or translating a note to parents |

BLD's guide to lessons found online is looser. It says AI can help teachers "brainstorm & suggest examples", "generate questions" and "offer differentiation strategies", provided teachers "still make the final decisions". The order governs. Differentiation strategies are instructional strategies, which para. 25(a) keeps for the teacher, and limited use comes only after the ILAW decisions are made. The course that satisfies both: decide the competency, objectives, activities and checks yourself or with colleagues first. Then use AI, if at all, for wording, extra practice items for a check you have already designed, or translation, and judge every output. DO 003's own list of sample uses calls "Lesson plan and test generation" a limited-risk use that needs transparency (Annex B), but DO 016 is the later order written for lesson plans, and it states: "fully AI-generated lesson plans shall not be allowed" (para. 23).

Items for a quiz or exit ticket fall under DO 015, s. 2026 as well. Its table for teachers lists "drafting test items or prompts" as limited use and "differentiating tasks" as guided use in assessment design (Table 6), and it bars teachers from putting "personal learner data or official DepEd documents into AI platforms" (para. 37). DO 015 also asks teachers to classify each assessment task as Prohibited, Limited or Guided AI use for learners (para. 36, Table 5). DepEd's teacher orientation worksheet calls the third category "Extensive"; the order's word is "Guided".

Three practical rules follow:

1. **Keep learners out of the prompt.** No names, grades, Individualized Education Plan (IEP) details or class lists. DO 003 bars uploading documents "that contain personally identifiable information" to AI platforms (Sec. VII.1.1). Describe needs in general terms, or do not use AI for that part.
2. **Declare in the AI row.** Annex B's row points to DO 003's Annex A, whose teacher declaration names the tool, what it was used for, its purpose and "The prompt used". A citation of AI use "shall include access to the chat history with the AI tool, through a link" (DO 003, Sec. VI.1.7(i)). Sample 2 shows a short declaration.
3. **Key Stage 1 learners do not use AI.** AI use in Kindergarten to Grade 3 "is limited exclusively to teacher preparation and the development of differentiated instructional materials" (DO 003, Sec. VI.1.1). A Grade 3 plan may not include an AI activity for learners.

The rest of DO 003 is explained in [the guide to DepEd's AI guidelines](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-ai-guidelines-do-003-s-2026).

## What ILAW-aligned lesson plan formats look like

BLD's guide to ILAW-aligned formats starts: "We are moving lesson planning from a compliance document to a more purposeful exercise. We don't have a national template." It calls ILAW "a framework that describes the minimum standards for lesson planning" and says "Leaders should not require additional elements beyond the minimum." It then shows four kinds of plans that all meet the standard:

| Format | BLD's heading | What the example shows |
|---|---|---|
| Short and simple | "Keep it short & simple" | A Grade 2 Makabansa plan for Term 1 on community structures: a few lines under each element, written in Filipino, on two short pages |
| Detailed | "Stay detailed" | A Grade 9 English plan for Term 2 on argumentative texts, with content and performance standards, key messages, references, vocabulary and sentence frames, running to six pages |
| Free layout | "Layout your way" | A Grade 8 Araling Panlipunan plan in two columns without tables, and a one-session Grade 3 Mathematics plan for Term 3 on describing outcomes as equally likely, more or less likely, certain or impossible |
| Weekly | "Weekly LPs" | A four-session Grade 4 Science plan on distance and speed, written by two teachers, with Day 1 to Day 4 side by side under Learning Experience |

The guide ends with the four questions a reviewer should ask instead of checking a template: "Are the intentions clear and aligned with our learners' capacities and contexts? Does the learning experience support our intentions? Are there opportunities to gather evidence so we can assess learning? Does it identify ways forward?"

One of the free-layout examples lists its designer and adds "with AI support for language editing". That is the kind of AI use the order allows, declared where a reader can see it.

DO 016 itself sets when a plan may be longer or shorter: more detailed when a teacher handles "new, unfamiliar, or complex content, learners, strategies, tools, resources, or modalities", more concise as the teacher gains confidence (para. 20). A new teacher's detailed plan and a master teacher's half-page plan can both be sufficient.

## Three complete sample ILAW lesson plans

> **Note**
>
> These are original sample plans, not DepEd materials. The schools, classes and learner details are invented. Each sample takes its competencies, standards and term from DepEd's three-term budget of work for its grade and learning area, and each shows a different format and design pattern. Copying one as it stands would skip the parts DO 016 asks teachers to write for their own learners.

The session lengths follow DepEd Order No. 012, s. 2024, which lets schools give each learning area 45 minutes a day or a uniform 50, 55 or 60 minutes; a school that proposes another combination must still give English, Mathematics and Science at least 225 minutes a week (para. 2). The multigrade sample uses the 90-minute Science 5 and 6 block in DepEd's sample class program for a Grades 5 and 6 combination ([DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/04/16/april-16-2026-do-009-s-2026-guidelines-on-the-implementation-of-the-three-term-school-calendar-in-basic-education/), Annex A, Table 9).

### Sample 1: Grade 5 Mathematics, Term 3, estimating and multiplying decimals

Format: Annex B's rows, filled in briefly. Pattern: explicit instruction (I Do, We Do, You Do).

| Row | Entry |
|---|---|
| Lesson Title | Estimate First, Then Multiply: Decimals at the Market |
| Learning Area/s | Mathematics |
| Name of Teacher/s | Grade 5 adviser and Mathematics teacher (Teacher I) |
| Grade Level and Section | Grade 5, one section of 41 learners, central elementary school in a provincial town |
| No. of Sessions | 2 sessions of 50 minutes, the first two on these competencies in Term 3, Weeks 1 to 2 (in SY 2026-2027, Term 3 begins on January 4, 2027) |
| References | Grade 5 Mathematics three-term budget of work, Term 3, Weeks 1 to 2; DepEd Lesson Exemplar for Mathematics Grade 5, Quarter 3, Lesson 5, for its multiplication steps (its estimation rule is replaced with the competency's); Recall Warmup, Stoplight and Scaffold Ladder from DepEd's Pedagogy Cards |
| Declaration of AI use | None |

#### Intentions

**Learning competencies** (budget of work, Term 3, Weeks 1 to 2):

- "Estimate each of two decimal numbers to the nearest whole number to estimate their product."
- "Multiply decimal numbers with decimal parts of up to 2 decimal places."

Content standard: "multiplication and division of decimal numbers". Performance standard: "multiply and divide decimal numbers." The third competency of these weeks, solving multi-step problems with money, follows in the next sessions.

**Learning objectives.** By the end of Session 1, learners can:

1. round each of two decimal factors to the nearest whole number and estimate their product (3.2 × 51.75 ≈ 3 × 52 = 156);
2. use an estimate to decide whether a total on a receipt is reasonable.

By the end of Session 2, learners can:

3. multiply two decimals with up to 2 decimal places each by multiplying as with whole numbers and placing the decimal point by counting decimal places;
4. check where the decimal point goes by comparing the product with the estimate.

**Learner context.** In Term 2 the class added, subtracted and rounded decimals (budget of work, Term 2, Weeks 1 to 3). On the Term 2 examination, about a third still lined up the last digits instead of the decimal points when adding. Most multiply two-digit by two-digit whole numbers correctly; about eight are still slow with the 6, 7, 8 and 9 times tables. Many help at a family store or buy rice and fish at the public market, so prices with centavos are familiar. One learner has low vision and an IEP (large print, front seat). Two learners attend the ARAL Program's mathematics sessions after class.

#### Learning Experience

**Pre-lesson** (Session 1, 7 minutes). Recall Warmup: five items on mini whiteboards or scrap paper. Three review items: round 7.82 to the nearest whole number; round 26.45 to the nearest whole number; 6 × 49. Two preview items: "Is 3.2 × 51.75 closer to 15, 150 or 1,500?" and "How did you decide?" Reveal the answers and spend two minutes on the item most learners missed.

**Flow, Session 1 (estimating)**

1. **Goal** (1 minute). "Today we estimate a product fast enough to check a bill before we pay."
2. **I Do** (8 minutes). Show a market receipt: 3.2 kilos of rice at ₱51.75 a kilo. Think aloud: "3.2 is closer to 3 than to 4, because the tenths digit is 2. ₱51.75 is closer to 52 than to 51, because the tenths digit is 7. So the cost is about 3 × 52 = ₱156." Write the two roundings on a number line.
3. **We Do** (10 minutes). Two more together: 1.8 × 29.75 ≈ 2 × 30 = 60, and 4.2 × 12.6 ≈ 4 × 13 = 52. Learners write each rounding before the product. *Check 1:* learners show their boards on the second item and hold up a Stoplight card.
4. **You Do** (14 minutes). Six receipts, each with a total. Learners estimate and mark each total "reasonable" or "check again". Two totals are wrong by a misplaced decimal point (2.6 kilos at ₱85.25 shown as ₱2,216.50; the estimate is 3 × 85 = 255). Pairs compare answers after working alone.
5. **Close** (10 minutes). Learners say why a total of ₱2,216.50 cannot be right, then answer the exit ticket (*Check 2*).

**Flow, Session 2 (multiplying)**

1. **Retrieval** (5 minutes). Two estimation items from Session 1 without notes.
2. **I Do** (10 minutes). Return to 3.2 × 51.75. Multiply 32 × 5175 = 165,600. Count decimal places: one in 3.2, two in 51.75, three in all, so the product is 165.600, or 165.6. Compare with the estimate of 156: close, so the decimal point is in the right place. Repeat with 0.6 × 4.25 = 2.55.
3. **We Do** (12 minutes). Scaffold Ladder: the class works three items with a steps card (estimate, multiply as whole numbers, count decimal places, place the point, compare). The card loses one step's hint after each item. *Check 3:* the teacher walks the rows with the class list and marks two common errors, lining up decimal points as in addition and miscounting decimal places.
4. **You Do** (15 minutes). Two sets. Set A, one decimal place in each factor (2.3 × 4.1; 6.4 × 0.7; 1.2 × 3.4). Set B, up to two decimal places (2.15 × 3.2; 0.75 × 1.6; 12.25 × 0.8). Every item has an "estimate" column filled in first. Learners who finish Set B write a receipt problem for a classmate.
5. **Close** (8 minutes). Exit ticket (*Check 4*), then learners say which step they can now do without the card.

*Teacher's note.* When both factors are less than 1 (0.25 × 0.4), rounding to the nearest whole number gives 0 or 1 and the estimate says little. Learners can instead reason that the product is smaller than both factors. Answers: 9.43, 4.48, 4.08, 6.88, 1.2, 9.8.

**Learning resources.** Mini whiteboards or reused folders as boards; six receipts the teacher wrote with real market prices; a steps card; a large-print set of every sheet; Stoplight cards. For *Hinay*: a two-page print sheet with one worked example, six items with an estimate column, and an answer guide for the family.

**Opportunities for integration and contextualization.** Local context: market and store prices, receipts. Values: checking a bill politely and correcting a mistake honestly. Technology: N/A.

#### Assessing Learning

| Check | When | What learners do | What the teacher does with it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Session 1, end of We Do | Show boards and a Stoplight card | If more than about a third round wrongly, reteach on the number line before You Do |
| 2 | End of Session 1 | Exit ticket: estimate 5.8 × 41.35; decide whether a receipt showing ₱2,398.30 for 5.8 kilos at ₱41.35 a kilo is reasonable; one sentence on how they knew | Sort into "got it", "almost", "not yet"; meet the "not yet" group at the start of Session 2 |
| 3 | Session 2, We Do | Work three items with the steps card | Note who lines up decimal points or miscounts decimal places |
| 4 | End of Session 2 | Exit ticket: 3.6 × 2.4 and 1.25 × 2.8, each with an estimate | Plan Session 3's groups |

Learners ask for help by turning a help card to its red side. The learner with low vision uses large-print sheets and may answer orally. Learners who are slow with multiplication facts may use a times-table strip in Session 2, because the objective is placing the decimal point, not recall of facts. None of these checks is recorded as a grade (DO 015, para. 15). Answers: 5.8 × 41.35 ≈ 6 × 41 = 246, so ₱2,398.30 is not reasonable (the exact total is ₱239.83); 3.6 × 2.4 = 8.64 (estimate 4 × 2 = 8); 1.25 × 2.8 = 3.5 (estimate 1 × 3 = 3).

#### Ways Forward

**Extended learning opportunities (optional).** At home, with a family member, estimate the cost of two items bought by the kilo or liter, then check with the exact price. Enrichment: decide which of two packs is the better buy and explain how the estimate helped.

**Reflections** (sample notes written after Session 1). Exit ticket: 30 of 41 estimated and judged the total correctly. Six dropped the decimal part instead of rounding (5.8 became 5), so their estimate was 205. Five did not finish. Session 2 opens with five minutes on the number line for those eleven. The receipts worked: two learners asked whether their store's weighing scale is accurate. For my coach: watch my We Do in Session 3; I want to know whether I hand over too soon.

### Sample 2: Grade 8 English, Term 2, kinds of evidence in an opinion editorial

Format: Annex B's rows, with an AI declaration. Pattern: 5 A's (Activate, Acquire, Apply, Assess, Adapt).

| Row | Entry |
|---|---|
| Lesson Title | Is That Proof? Four Kinds of Evidence in an Opinion Editorial |
| Learning Area/s | English |
| Name of Teacher/s | Grade 8 English teacher (Teacher III) |
| Grade Level and Section | Grade 8, one section of 44 learners, city high school |
| No. of Sessions | 2 sessions of 60 minutes, Term 2. The Grade 8 English budget of work lists the Term 2 competencies without weeks; this plan follows the class's lessons on the three kinds of claims |
| References | Grade 8 English three-term budget of work, Term 2 ("Persuasive Text and Opinion Editorials"); the opinion editorial below, written by the teacher; Exit Tickets from DepEd's Pedagogy Cards |
| Declaration of AI use | I used [AI tool] to check the grammar and spelling of the opinion editorial I wrote for Session 1, for the purpose of lesson planning. Prompt: "Check the grammar and spelling of this text. Do not change its claims, its evidence, or its length." I reviewed and accepted two changes and rejected one. No learner information was entered. Chat history: [link]. |

#### Intentions

**Learning competencies** (Grade 8, Term 2):

- "Distinguish facts from claims/opinions", for the four kinds of evidence the budget of work marks for this term: "self-evidence", "anecdotal evidence", "argument from authority" and "empirical evidence".
- "Evaluate claims explicitly or implicitly made in a text: -claim of fact -claim of value -claim of policy".

Content standard (Term 2): "The learners demonstrate their multiliteracies and communicative competence in evaluating informational texts (persuasive texts and journalistic texts: opinion editorials) for clarity of meaning, purpose, and target audience as a foundation for publishing original informational texts."

**Learning objectives.** By the end of Session 1, learners can:

1. identify the main claim of an opinion editorial and say whether it is a claim of fact, value or policy;
2. sort its supporting statements into self-evidence, anecdotal evidence, argument from authority and empirical evidence;
3. rank the evidence by how well it supports the claim, giving a reason.

By the end of Session 2, learners can:

4. write a paragraph of 80 to 120 words for a policy claim about their school, using at least two kinds of evidence other than self-evidence.

Working definitions for the lesson: *self-evidence* is a statement offered as obviously true, with nothing to support it ("Everyone knows ..."); *anecdotal evidence* is a personal story or a single case; *argument from authority* rests on who said it; *empirical evidence* comes from observation, counting or measurement that others could check.

**Learner context.** Last week's exit tickets showed most learners can find the claim in a short text, but about a third call any sentence with "should" a claim of value rather than a claim of policy. In class discussion learners argue well from their own experience and rarely ask "How do we know?" Many follow local news pages on social media. Six learners attend the school's reading intervention and read grade-level text slowly. One learner has an IEP for attention (short tasks, a written checklist).

#### Learning Experience

**Pre-lesson: Activate** (Session 1, 8 minutes). Write a claim on the board: "Our canteen should sell fruit every day." Read two reasons aloud: "My cousin got sick from eating chips every day," and "For two weeks, our class recorded what was sold at the canteen, and fruit sold out by 10 a.m. on 9 of 10 days." Learners show one finger or two for the reason that convinces them more, then explain to a partner why. Recall: what kind of claim is it? (Policy: it says what should be done.)

**Flow, Session 1**

1. **Acquire** (12 minutes). State the objective. Present the four kinds of evidence with the working definitions and one annotated example each, all about the canteen claim. Model the question to ask of every piece: "If this is true, how much does it help the claim?" Point out that an authority can also cite data: "the nurse says" is authority, but "the clinic log shows 31 visits" is empirical.
2. **Apply** (18 minutes). Groups of four (reader, recorder, checker, reporter) read the opinion editorial below. They cut it into statement strips, sort them under the four headings, and rank the evidence from strongest to weakest for the claim, writing one reason for the top and bottom choices (*Check 1*). The teacher sits first with the two groups that include the six learners in reading intervention and reads the text aloud with them.
3. **Assess** (12 minutes). Recitation: the teacher shows four new statements about another issue ("The barangay should light the basketball court at night"). For each, learners hold up one to four fingers for the kind of evidence. Three learners explain a disputed item (*Check 2*).
4. **Adapt** (10 minutes). Reteach the most common confusion with two contrasting pairs, then the exit ticket (*Check 3*).

The opinion editorial for Session 1, written by the teacher:

> **Bring Back the Refilling Station**
>
> Our school should reopen the drinking-water refilling station beside the canteen. Everyone knows that clean water is a basic need. Last week, my seatmate felt dizzy during PE because her bottle was empty and she had no money to buy water. Our school nurse says that learners who drink enough water during the day concentrate better in class. In a count our class made on three school days in October, we found 214 plastic water bottles in the bins near the canteen. Some say a station is hard to keep clean. The student government can check it every day with the canteen staff. Let us ask the school head to reopen the station before the end of Term 2.

Key: claim of policy (the first sentence); self-evidence ("Everyone knows ..."); anecdotal (the seatmate); authority (the nurse); empirical (the count of 214 bottles). The counterclaim and its answer are not evidence; learners who sort them separately are right.

**Flow, Session 2**

1. **Retrieval** (5 minutes). Three statements to classify, one from each of the less familiar kinds.
2. **Model** (10 minutes). The teacher writes a short paragraph live for "Our school should have a lost-and-found shelf", saying aloud which kind of evidence each sentence is and why the empirical one goes last.
3. **Write** (25 minutes). Learners choose a school issue and write 80 to 120 words with at least two kinds of evidence other than self-evidence. A checklist on the board: claim of policy in the first sentence; two kinds of evidence, labeled in the margin; one counterclaim answered.
4. **Peer check** (15 minutes). Partners swap paragraphs and label each other's evidence. Where the writer's label and the partner's differ, they talk it over and the writer revises.
5. **Close** (5 minutes). Two learners read their paragraphs; the class names the strongest piece of evidence in each.

**Learning resources.** Printed copies of the opinion editorial (one in large font), statement strips, four heading cards per group, the checklist. For *Hinay*: a print sheet with the opinion editorial, the four definitions, a sorting table and a guide for the family; the Session 2 paragraph is written at home and sent back with the next print sheet.

**Opportunities for integration and contextualization.** Health (MAPEH): drinking water during the school day. Local context: school issues learners choose themselves. Values: disagreeing with a claim without dismissing the person. Technology: N/A this week; social media posts can supply texts for later lessons on propaganda techniques.

#### Assessing Learning

| Check | When | What learners do | What the teacher does with it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Session 1, Apply | Groups sort and rank the strips | Circulate; ask each group to justify one ranking; note groups that put the nurse under empirical |
| 2 | Session 1, Assess | Show fingers for four new statements | Count wrong answers per item; reteach the item most missed in Adapt |
| 3 | End of Session 1 | Exit ticket: one new statement to classify, and "Which piece of evidence in today's editorial would you remove, and why?" | Group learners for Session 2's peer check |
| 4 | Session 2, Peer check | Label a partner's evidence | Read five paragraphs at random; the paragraphs are drafts and are not graded |

Accommodations: the learner with an IEP for attention gets the sorting task in two parts with a written checklist and a short break between them. Learners in reading intervention hear the text read aloud and may answer orally. Any learner may ask for help by writing a question on a sticky note on their desk.

#### Ways Forward

**Extended learning opportunities (optional).** Bring one opinion post from a local news page and label its evidence. Learners who want a challenge find an empirical claim in it and say how they would check it.

**Reflections** (sample notes written after Session 1). The anecdote about the seatmate was ranked strongest by 7 of 11 groups, so the class trusts stories more than counts. Tomorrow's model paragraph should show why a count of 214 bottles supports a policy better than one dizzy learner. Most learners now label "should" sentences as policy. For my coach: I spent too long on Acquire; please time it when you visit.

### Sample 3: Grades 5 and 6 multigrade Science, Term 2, forces and direction

Format: an integrated multigrade plan (DO 016, para. 14), with the two grades side by side. Pattern: inquiry learning (Question, Investigate, Analyze, Share).

| Row | Entry |
|---|---|
| Lesson Title | Which Way Does It Go? Pushes, Pulls and Levers |
| Learning Area/s | Science |
| Name of Teacher/s | Teacher of the Grades 5 and 6 combination class (Teacher II) |
| Grade Level and Section | Grades 5 and 6 combination class: 12 Grade 5 and 11 Grade 6 learners, a two-teacher school in an upland barangay |
| No. of Sessions | 1 session of 90 minutes (the Wednesday Science 5 and 6 block); Term 2, Week 7 for both grades |
| References | Grade 5 Science budget of work, Term 2, Week 7; Grade 6 Science budget of work, Term 2, Weeks 5 to 7; Stoplight and Claim-Evidence-Reason from DepEd's Pedagogy Cards |
| Declaration of AI use | None |

The pairing works because the two budgets of work meet in the same week: Grade 5's Week 7 is on contact forces, and Grade 6's Weeks 5 to 7 are on simple machines. Both are about the direction of a force.

#### Intentions

| | Grade 5 | Grade 6 |
|---|---|---|
| Learning competency | "Carry out simple investigations to demonstrate that contact forces cause objects to move in the same direction as the direction that the force is applied." | "Carry out fair tests to show how levers can be used to change the magnitude and direction of a force." |
| Content standard (Term 2) | "Forces are pushes or pulls that act in a specific direction." | "Simple machines allow people to change the direction and size of forces." |
| Learning objectives | 1. Push or pull four objects and record, with arrows, the direction of the force and the direction of the motion. 2. State from their records how the two directions compare. | 1. Show that pushing down on one end of a ruler lever lifts a load at the other end. 2. Run a fair test that changes only the position of the fulcrum, and record how many coins of effort lift the load. 3. Explain how moving the fulcrum changes the size of the push needed. |

**Learner context.** Grade 6 learners met simple machines in Weeks 5 and 6 and can name the fulcrum, load and effort, but last week several could not say what a fair test keeps the same. Grade 5 learners are starting forces this week after three weeks on life cycles. All learners have seen a *bareta* (crowbar) used to lift stones on the farms, and the school has a seesaw. Most speak the local language at home; the teacher explains key ideas in it when needed, which DO 010, s. 2024 allows as an "auxiliary medium". One Grade 6 learner has a hearing difficulty and sits near the teacher; instructions are also written on task cards.

#### Learning Experience

**Pre-lesson: Question** (both grades, 10 minutes). The teacher pushes a chair across the floor, pulls it back with a rope, then slides one end of a stick under the edge of a heavy box, rests the stick on a small block close to the box, and pushes the free end down. The box lifts. Ask: "Which way did each thing move, compared with the way I pushed or pulled?" Learners answer in pairs. Write the class question on the board: "Does a thing always move the way we push it?" Grade 5 will test the first part; Grade 6 will test the lever.

**Flow.** The teacher works directly with one grade while the other works from a task card, then switches. The task cards are written so a group can work without waiting for the teacher.

| Time | Grade 5 | Grade 6 | Teacher |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 to 35 minutes | **Investigate, with the teacher.** Model the record table: draw an arrow for the push or pull, then an arrow for the motion. Try it together with a marble on the floor pushed from the left, then from the front. *Check 1:* learners draw arrows on their boards for a third push. | **Investigate, task card A.** In groups of three or four, set up a 30-centimeter ruler on a pencil as the fulcrum, a load of five coins taped at one end. Push the other end down and record which way the load moves. Predict: "If the fulcrum moves closer to the load, will you need more coins or fewer to lift it?" Write the prediction. | With Grade 5 |
| 35 to 60 minutes | **Investigate, task card B.** In pairs, rotate through four stations: pull a slipper with a string, push a toy car, flick a bottle cap from the side, push a book across a desk. Record both arrows for each. | **Investigate, with the teacher.** Check predictions. Plan the fair test together: change only the fulcrum position (at 10, 15 and 20 centimeters from the load end); keep the ruler, the load and its place the same; count the coins placed at the far end that just lift the load. Run three trials at each position. *Check 2:* each group says what it kept the same and why. | With Grade 6 |
| 60 to 80 minutes | **Analyze and Share.** Each pair writes a claim with evidence from their table, using the Claim-Evidence-Reason frame ("We claim ... because in our table ..."). | **Analyze and Share.** Each group reports its middle result at each fulcrum position and explains the pattern. One group explains to Grade 5 why the box lifted when the stick was pushed down over the block. | Both grades together |
| 80 to 90 minutes | Exit ticket (*Check 3*) | Exit ticket (*Check 3*) | Both grades; clean-up |

*Teacher's note.* With the fulcrum nearer the load, the learner's end of the ruler is longer, so fewer coins lift the load; the lever also turns a downward push into an upward lift. If a Grade 5 learner pushes a marble that is already rolling, from the side, it changes direction but does not travel straight along the push. A learner who notices this has found a good question for the next lesson.

**Learning resources.** Rulers, pencils, one-peso coins (or bottle caps filled with sand as equal weights), tape, marbles, a toy car, a string, slippers, two task cards per grade, a Claim-Evidence-Reason frame on the board. For *Hinay*: Grade 5's print sheet asks learners to draw push-and-pull arrows for four tasks at home (opening a door, drawing water, pushing a wheelbarrow, pulling a carabao's rope); Grade 6's asks them to find three levers at home, such as a bottle opener, scissors or a *bareta*, and mark the fulcrum, load and effort.

**Opportunities for integration and contextualization.** Local context: the *bareta* and the seesaw. Safety: sticks and coins are handled at the desk, and nobody stands on the ruler. Mathematics: Grade 6 reads the middle value of three trials. Technology: N/A.

#### Assessing Learning

| Check | Grade 5 | Grade 6 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | During teacher time: arrows drawn on boards for a third push; Stoplight card | (Grade 6 is on task card A; the teacher reads their predictions at the switch) |
| 2 | Teacher reads two pairs' station tables while Grade 6 runs trials | During teacher time: each group names what it kept the same and why |
| 3 | Exit ticket: draw the force arrow and the motion arrow for a cart being pulled to the right; one sentence comparing them | Exit ticket: "To lift a heavy load with fewer coins, where should the fulcrum be?" and one sentence on what the lever did to the direction of the push |

The Grade 6 learner with a hearing difficulty has every instruction on the task card and answers in writing. Any group that is stuck while the teacher is with the other grade places a red Stoplight card on its table and moves to the next step on the card; the teacher visits at the switch.

#### Ways Forward

**Extended learning opportunities (optional).** Grade 5: find one push or pull at home that does not move the object at all, and say why. Grade 6: compare a long and a short *bareta* lifting the same stone, with an adult present.

**Reflections** (sample notes written after the session). Grade 5: 10 of 12 drew matching arrows on the exit ticket; two drew the motion arrow opposite the pull, so Thursday starts with those two on the rope. Grade 6: all three groups found that fewer coins were needed with the fulcrum nearer the load, but two of them said "the lever makes it lighter". Thursday: lift the five-coin load by hand, then with the lever, and ask whether the load changed. The Grade 6 groups waited for me twice during task card A; the next card needs a clearer step 3. For my coach: how do other multigrade teachers keep both grades moving during the switch?

## How DepEd's lesson exemplars fit the three-term calendar and ILAW

DepEd's Learning Systems site describes the lesson exemplars as "A collection of lesson exemplars made by the central office, tagged according to terms, grade levels, and subjects. Adapt, contextualize, adjust for your classrooms." It adds that they are "(Soon to be ILAW aligned for Term 2, 2026)". In November 2026 the collection lists about 2,100 exemplars from Kindergarten to Grade 10. Most carry a quarter and a week in their titles (for example, "Q3 W5"), from the four-quarter calendar they were written for; the Grade 5 exemplar above is marked "SY 2025-2026", and its notice reserves it for teachers' use in that school year. DepEd's Learning Systems site now offers the collection for adaptation, and DO 016 allows exemplars to be "modified or adapted" (para. 22).

A quarter label does not tell a teacher where a lesson falls in a term. The site's term tags help, and the budget of work decides:

| Exemplar | Competency (shortened) | Tag on DepEd's site | Budget of work |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mathematics G5, Q3 W5 | Multiply decimals; estimate products | Term 3 | Term 3, Weeks 1 to 2 |
| Mathematics G5, Q3 W4 | Describe and calculate probability | All Terms | Term 2, Week 10 |
| Science G5, Q3 W1 | Contact forces and the direction of motion | Term 2 | Term 2, Week 7 |
| Science G6, Q3 W2 and W4 | Fair tests with levers | Term 2 | Term 2, Weeks 5 to 7 |
| Science G5, Q2 W4 | Classify plants in a table | Term 1 | Term 1, Weeks 8 to 10 |

So a Quarter 3 exemplar may belong to Term 2 or Term 3, and a Quarter 2 exemplar may belong to Term 1. A tag such as "All Terms" does not say when to teach the lesson. More exemplars are coming: under DM 064, s. 2026, the Learning Systems Strand and the curriculum divisions "shall issue flexible instructional adjustments and learning exemplars to ensure that foundational competencies are retained despite delivery disruptions" (Encl., Sec. 5.2.1).

How to use an exemplar under DO 016:

1. **Find the competency in the budget of work.** Search the term's weeks for the competency the exemplar names, and take the term and week from there. The budget of work is "a guiding reference only", and regional and division offices are told not to prescribe a set number of days (DO 009, s. 2026, para. 25).
2. **Check it against the competency.** As the Grade 5 example showed, an exemplar can teach a step the competency does not ask for. Check also that its performance standard, written "By the end of the quarter", matches the term's.
3. **Make ILAW visible.** Add what exemplars lack: a learner context, a *Hinay* alternative, and the teacher's own Ways Forward notes, and mark the checks the exemplar already has (quiz bees, turn-and-talks, activity sheets) as checks. An exemplar's four days of activities can stay as the flow of a multi-session plan.
4. **Cut what your learners do not need.** Exemplars are written to be complete; BLD's advice to "Keep only what supports teaching" applies to them too.
5. **Use them to coach.** For new teachers and teachers new to a learning area, the order names "the use of lesson exemplars or models" as structured guidance, without "additional documentation requirements" (para. 29). The order sets no sequence; teaching an exemplar's lesson, then planning the next one in the same pattern with a coach, is one way for a newly hired teacher to start.

The school's own exemplars count too. A plan a teacher has adapted, taught and reflected on can be a closer model for the next teacher of that grade than a national exemplar, and the order lets schools keep exemplary plans beyond the recommended three years "as samples for professional development and/or coaching purposes" (para. 37(e)).

## What this means for school heads

The school head's part is set out in the [DO 016 guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-lesson-planning-do-016-s-2026), which covers qualitative review, walkthroughs, the rubric and coaching. For the plans themselves:

- **Look for alignment, not length.** Does the competency come from this term's budget of work? Are the objectives smaller than the competency and visible in what learners do? Is at least one check inside the flow, with a note on what the teacher will do with it? Does the reflection name evidence and a next step? BLD's four questions on formats are a good reading guide.
- **Accept any format.** Short, detailed, free-layout, weekly and integrated multigrade plans are all sufficient when ILAW is evident. A school may adopt Annex B as its template (Annex B's note), but it may not require a template of its own with extra rows, standards the teacher does not use, objectives sorted into domains, or a separate plan per day (paras. 10 and 21), and it accepts a teacher's own format in which ILAW is evident (paras. 11 and 30).
- **Treat the AI row as information.** A declared limited or guided use is what the order asks for. A declaration that AI wrote the objectives or activities names a use the order prohibits (para. 25(a)). The order makes the findings of plan reviews "the basis for coaching, technical assistance, and instructional support" (para. 37(b)), so plan the next lesson with the teacher, as the DO 016 guide explains.
- **Run the conversion in learning action cells.** BLD's five revision steps fit one session: teachers bring one old DLL or exemplar each, revise it in pairs, and self-check with the rubric. DepEd's teacher orientation package has a ready activity of this kind, "Lesson Re/Design", in which groups of two or three write a shared plan, check it with the rubric and coach another group. See [DepEd learning action cells](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-learning-action-cell) for how to plan the sessions.
- **Support multigrade teachers with integrated plans.** Accept one plan for a combination class and look at whether one grade can work while the teacher is with the other ([small and multigrade schools](https://nash.com.ph/blog/small-multigrade-school-leadership)).
- **Protect planning time.** The order asks school heads to relieve teachers of administrative tasks so they have time for lesson plans (para. 37(c)).

These duties fall under PPSSH strand 3.1 on the review and contextualization of learning standards and strand 4.5 on professional development, covered in [PPSSH Domain 3: Teaching and Learning](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-3-teaching-and-learning) and [PPSSH Domain 4: Developing Self and Others](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-4-developing-self-and-others).

## How the NASH may test this

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

### Question 1

*Indicator 3.1.2, School-based review, contextualization and implementation of learning standards. Career Stage 2, Situational, Moderate.*

You are the school head of a coastal elementary school. A Grade 5 teacher plans to teach a Central Office lesson exemplar on multiplying decimals word for word in the first weeks of Term 3. Reading it, you notice that its estimation steps round each number to one non-zero digit, while the competency in the budget of work asks learners to round to the nearest whole number. Its word problems are about fast-food meals that few of the teacher's learners buy. What is the most appropriate action?

- **A.** Ask the master teacher to rewrite the exemplar for the teacher, correcting the estimation steps and adding local market prices, so the class can start using it at once.
- **B.** Review the exemplar with the teacher against the competency in the budget of work, have them adjust the estimation steps, and help them swap in local market prices.
- **C.** Remind the teacher that exemplars are only references, and ask them to write a new plan of their own from the budget of work in place of the exemplar.
- **D.** Direct all teachers to follow Central Office exemplars word for word this term, since these serve as the national standard for lesson plans.

**Answer and explanation**

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

- **A (2 points, Multistructural).** It fixes both problems, the misaligned estimation rule and the unfamiliar examples, but someone else does the teacher's planning. The teacher stays responsible for the plan and learns nothing about checking an exemplar.
- **B (3 points, Relational).** It reviews the material against the learning standard, contextualizes it for the learners, and does both with the teacher, who keeps responsibility for the plan.
- **C (1 point, Unistructural).** It states one true rule, that exemplars are references, but leaves the teacher alone with the problem and throws away a usable material.
- **D (0 points, Prestructural).** It treats exemplars as a required national template. The order makes them reference materials that teachers may modify and states that no national template is required.

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because the school head assists a teacher in reviewing and contextualizing learning standards so the lesson fits the learners. DO 016, s. 2026 allows teachers to use lesson exemplars "as reference materials, provided that they remain fully responsible" for plans "responsive to their learners' needs and contexts", and says such materials "may be modified or adapted" (para. 22). The 2-point option corrects the material but takes the review out of the teacher's hands.

*Indicator 3.1.2: Assist teachers in the review, contextualization and implementation of learning standards to make the curriculum relevant for learners.*

*Sources: DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, paras. 11 and 22; DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, para. 25; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.*

### Question 2

*Indicator 4.5.2, Professional development of school personnel. Career Stage 2, Situational, Difficult.*

You are the school head of a large junior high school. Reviewing a sample of Term 2 lesson plans, you find that most teachers simply relabeled the parts of their old Daily Lesson Logs with the four ILAW headings. Their checks for understanding come only at the end of each lesson, and their Ways Forward parts are blank or say "the lesson was successful." Several teachers, though, check understanding at points through the lesson and write specific next steps. What is the most appropriate action?

- **A.** Hold a whole-day orientation on the ILAW framework and the Learning Design Principles for all teachers, then have each revise their Term 2 plans on their own afterward.
- **B.** Send the teachers whose plans lack checks and next steps to the next division training on formative assessment, since the gaps in planning lie with them.
- **C.** Use the next learning action cell sessions for teachers to revise one of their own plans in pairs, adding checks and next steps, with the strongest planners leading.
- **D.** Have the strongest planners score each plan with the lesson planning rubric, return those marked Not Yet, and require resubmission in a school template.

**Answer and explanation**

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

- **A (2 points, Multistructural).** It addresses the gap for everyone, but as a one-time orientation, and it leaves the revision to each teacher alone without using the teachers who already plan well.
- **B (1 point, Unistructural).** Professional development is the right kind of response, but it waits for an outside training, singles out teachers, and ignores the strengths inside the school.
- **C (3 points, Relational).** It turns the review findings into job-embedded development: teachers revise their own plans, the missing checks and next steps are the focus, and the colleagues who already do both lead.
- **D (0 points, Prestructural).** It uses the strong planners, but as scorers. The order bars using the rubric as a "scoring tool for paperwork completion" and bars schools from requiring additional templates.

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because the school head implements a professional development initiative that builds on strengths and addresses a performance gap the review found. DO 016, s. 2026 makes the findings of qualitative reviews "the basis for coaching, technical assistance, and instructional support" and names learning action cell sessions as venues for "co-creating lesson plans" (para. 37(a) and (b)). The 2-point option teaches the framework but does not connect it to each teacher's own plans or to the colleagues who can help.

*Indicator 4.5.2: Implement professional development initiatives to enhance strengths and address performance gaps among school personnel.*

*Sources: DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, paras. 9, 21, 27 and 37; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.*

Nothing in this guide reproduces or predicts examination content.

## Frequently asked questions

### Do I need a separate ILAW lesson plan for every day?

No. One plan may cover several sessions: Annex B of DO 016, s. 2026 has a "No. of Sessions" row, a competency "may span several lessons" (para. 7(a)(i)), and BLD's guide to formats shows a four-day weekly plan. Write the reflection after each session, since the order asks for reflection "At the end of each lesson/session" (para. 7(d)(i)).

### Can I use a DepEd lesson exemplar as my lesson plan?

Yes, as a reference you adapt. DO 016, s. 2026 lets teachers use lesson exemplars from the Central Office and other offices, provided they "remain fully responsible" for a plan that fits their learners, and allows them to modify the materials (para. 22). Take the term and week from the budget of work, check the exemplar against the competency, and add what ILAW needs, such as a learner context, checks inside the flow and a reflection.

### Do I have to write the content and performance standards in an ILAW plan?

The order requires the learning competencies (DO 016, s. 2026, para. 7(a)(i)). Annex B also asks for "the content or performance standards applicable to the sessions", but BLD's guide to ILAW-aligned formats calls the standards extra details a teacher is "free to keep ... as long as you find it useful". The order's framework names the competencies, not the standards, and teachers "shall not be required to include components beyond those prescribed in the framework" (para. 10).

### How do I declare AI use in an ILAW lesson plan?

Write it in the "Declaration of AI use" row: the tool, what you used it for, the prompt, and a link to the chat, following the teacher declaration in Annex A of DO 003, s. 2026 (Sec. VI.1.7). If you used no AI, write "None." AI may not be used to set objectives, unpack competencies or design the lesson (DO 016, s. 2026, para. 25(a)).

### What is the learner context in an ILAW lesson plan?

It is the Annex B prompt where the teacher writes "observations of your learners, and how they have been performing or responding to learning experiences recently", with strengths, interests and barriers. Write evidence from recent checks, what interests the class, and any needs from IEPs or reading levels, then make sure the objectives and activities answer them.

## Sources

**DepEd issuances**

- [DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/06/04/june-4-2026-do-016-s-2026-guidelines-on-lesson-planning-and-learning-design/), Guidelines on Lesson Planning and Learning Design, June 4, 2026: paras. 7 to 11, 14, 20 to 25, 27 to 30, 37 and 43, Table 1, Annex A (Lesson Planning Rubric) and Annex B (Lesson Planning Guide)
- [DepEd Order No. 003, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/02/20/february-20-2026-do-003-s-2026-foundational-guidelines-on-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-basic-education/), Foundational Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Basic Education, February 20, 2026: Secs. VI.1.1, VI.1.7 and VII.1.1, Annexes A and B
- [DepEd Order No. 015, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/06/04/june-4-2026-do-015-s-2026-revised-guidelines-on-classroom-assessment-grading-system-and-awards-and-recognition-for-the-k-to-12-basic-education-program/), Revised Guidelines on Classroom Assessment, Grading System, and Awards and Recognition for the K to 12 Basic Education Program, June 4, 2026: paras. 14, 15, 36 and 37, Tables 5 and 6
- [DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/04/16/april-16-2026-do-009-s-2026-guidelines-on-the-implementation-of-the-three-term-school-calendar-in-basic-education/), Guidelines on the Implementation of the Three-Term School Calendar in Basic Education, April 16, 2026: para. 25, Annex A (Table 9), Annex B and Annex E
- [DepEd Memorandum No. 064, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/10/26/october-26-2026-dm-064-s-2026-anticipatory-action-preparedness-and-protective-measures-for-the-2026-2027-super-el-nino/), Anticipatory Action, Preparedness, and Protective Measures for the 2026–2027 Super El Niño, October 26, 2026: Encl., Secs. 5.2.1 and 5.2.3
- [DepEd Order No. 014, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/06/04/june-4-2026-do-014-s-2026-guidelines-on-learning-continuity-in-emergencies/), Guidelines on Learning Continuity in Emergencies, June 4, 2026: Annex C
- [DepEd Order No. 010, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/07/23/july-23-2024-do-010-s-2024-policy-guidelines-on-the-implementation-of-the-matatag-curriculum/), Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the MATATAG Curriculum, July 23, 2024: para. 8 and Annex 5 (Table 1), and the medium of teaching and learning
- [DepEd Order No. 012, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/09/18/september-18-2024-do-012-s-2024-amendment-to-deped-order-no-010-s-2024-policy-guidelines-on-the-implementation-of-the-matatag-curriculum/), Amendment to DepEd Order No. 010, s. 2024, September 18, 2024: para. 2 (time allotment)
- [DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2016](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/06/17/do-42-s-2016-policy-guidelines-on-daily-lesson-preparation-for-the-k-to-12-basic-education-program/), Policy Guidelines on Daily Lesson Preparation for the K to 12 Basic Education Program (repealed by DO 016, s. 2026): paras. 40 to 55 and the DLL template
- [DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2020/09/07/september-7-2020-do-024-s-2020-national-adoption-and-implementation-of-the-philippine-professional-standards-for-school-heads/), National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads: indicators 3.1.2 and 4.5.2

**DepEd materials that support the orders (not issuances)**

- Bureau of Learning Delivery, ILAW guides, 2026: "Lesson Planning with ILAW"; "Revising DLLs and DLPs to ILAW"; "Lesson Design Patterns: Support for ILAW"; "Found a Lesson Online? Support for ILAW"; and "ILAW-aligned Lesson Plan Formats", listed on the [Lesson Planning page](https://sites.google.com/deped.gov.ph/lsguide/lesson-planning) of DepEd's Guide to Learning Systems Updates
- DepEd Learning Systems Strand, Lesson Plan Template with the Rubric for Lesson Planning Self-Check and/or Peer Coaching (the "Lesson Plan Guide"), and Learning Systems Reform Policies: Orientation for Teachers (worksheets and handouts), SY 2026-2027 orientation package
- Bureau of Learning Delivery, Pedagogy Cards
- DepEd, [three-term budgets of work](https://sites.google.com/deped.gov.ph/lsguide/budgets-of-work): Grade 5 Mathematics and Grade 6 Mathematics (last updated April 17, 2026), Grade 5 Science and Grade 6 Science (April 8, 2026), Grade 8 English (April 23, 2026)
- DepEd Central Office, Lesson Exemplar for Mathematics Grade 5, Quarter 3, Lesson 5, SY 2025-2026, and the collection of lesson exemplars tagged by term on the Lesson Planning page

## Learning Systems reforms, SY 2026-2027

- [DepEd Learning Systems Reforms: SY 2026-2027 Guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-learning-systems-reforms-sy-2026-2027)
- [DepEd Three-Term School Calendar 2026-2027: DO 009 Guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-three-term-school-calendar)
- [DepEd Opening Block: The First Weeks of Term 1](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-opening-block-guide)
- [From Curriculum to Lesson: Unpacking and Budget of Work](https://nash.com.ph/blog/curriculum-to-lesson-unpacking-budget-of-work)
- [DepEd ILAW Lesson Plan, DO 016, s. 2026: School Head's Role](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-lesson-planning-do-016-s-2026)
- ILAW Lesson Plan: How to Write One, With Samples (this post)
- [DepEd Pedagogy Cards: 50 Teaching Strategies by Key Stage](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-pedagogy-cards-teaching-strategies)
- [DepEd Grading System, DO 015, s. 2026: School Head's Role](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-classroom-assessment-do-015-s-2026)
- [DepEd E-Class Record and SF9 for SY 2026-2027](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-e-class-record-sf9-sy-2026-2027)
- [DepEd Learning Continuity in Emergencies: DO 014, s. 2026](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-learning-continuity-emergencies-do-014-s-2026)
- [DepEd Flexible Learning Program (FLP) Explained](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-flexible-learning-program-flp)
- [MATATAG Curriculum and Strengthened SHS in SY 2026-2027](https://nash.com.ph/blog/matatag-curriculum-strengthened-shs)
- [Strengthened SHS Electives: Full List by Cluster](https://nash.com.ph/blog/strengthened-shs-electives-list-by-cluster)
- [Work Immersion Guidelines 2026: DepEd Order No. 023, s. 2026](https://nash.com.ph/blog/shs-work-immersion-field-exposure-do-023-s-2026)

*Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 and its Annexes A and B; DepEd Orders No. 003, No. 009, No. 014 and No. 015, s. 2026; DepEd Memorandum No. 064, s. 2026; DepEd Orders No. 010 and No. 012, s. 2024; DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2016; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; the Bureau of Learning Delivery's ILAW guides and Pedagogy Cards; DepEd's lesson plan template and orientation worksheets; DepEd's three-term budgets of work and lesson exemplars.*

---

© 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. All rights reserved. You may quote up to 100 words from this article with the author's name, its title and a link. In research, cite it as: Llego, M. A. (2026, November 14). *ILAW Lesson Plan: How to Write One, With Samples*. NASH Reviewer. https://nash.com.ph/blog/ilaw-lesson-plan-sample-how-to-write. Any other reuse of the article, its charts or its data needs written permission: email support@nash.com.ph. Terms of Service: https://nash.com.ph/terms#website-content-and-data