# Instructional Leadership for DepEd School Heads

What instructional leadership means for DepEd school heads: PPSSH Domain 3, DO 016, s. 2026, the research evidence, and an instructional leader's week.

This is the Markdown copy of [Instructional Leadership for DepEd School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/instructional-leadership-deped-school-heads), an article on the NASH Reviewer Blog by Mark Anthony Llego, published Oct 30, 2026, updated Nov 4, 2026. Topics: School leadership, Aspiring school heads. NASH Reviewer is an independent practice platform not affiliated with DepEd, BHROD, or NEAP.

Instructional leadership is the part of a school head's work aimed directly at teaching and learning: setting learning goals with teachers, checking and supporting teaching, leading teachers' professional learning, and protecting the time and conditions that learning needs. This guide explains what the term means in research, where the Department of Education (DepEd) puts it in law and policy, what the evidence says it does for learners, why it is hard to practice in Philippine public schools, and what an instructional leader's week can look like.

It is written for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH), for newly designated school heads, and for teachers-in-charge. The NASH is built on the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), adopted through [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/), and at Career Stage 1 the PPSSH expects aspiring school heads to have "acquired the minimum qualifications to perform their functions as instructional leaders and administrative managers". This post is the "why and what". The "how" is in three companion guides: [instructional supervision](https://nash.com.ph/blog/instructional-supervision-school-heads) (observing and coaching), [learning action cells](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-learning-action-cell), and [lesson planning under DO 016, s. 2026](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-lesson-planning-do-016-s-2026).

## Key points

- **The law makes instructional leadership part of the school head's job, not an extra.** Republic Act (RA) No. 9155 says the school head "shall be both an instructional leader and administrative manager". In the PPSSH it is the core of Domain 3.
- **DepEd now defines instructional leadership as a practice, shared by several people.** DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 calls it "the deliberate practice of supporting teaching and learning through evidence-based feedback and contextualized coaching". It names head teachers, master teachers and coordinators, not only school heads, as instructional leaders.
- **Research links leadership that works close to teaching with better learner results.** In Robinson and colleagues' 2009 synthesis, instructional leadership had an average effect size of .42 on student outcomes, against .11 for transformational leadership. The largest, .84, was for leaders who take part in teachers' learning. These are associations from a small, mostly American base.
- **Principals matter, mostly through their teachers.** A 2021 synthesis of United States research estimates that replacing a 25th-percentile elementary school principal with a 75th-percentile one adds about 2.9 months of math learning and 2.7 months of reading learning a year. The effect runs largely through teachers.
- **Classroom visits are not instructional leadership by themselves.** In one study of 100 principals, time spent coaching teachers was associated with higher achievement growth, while informal walk-throughs were not; the authors suggest this was because walk-throughs were seldom tied to feedback.
- **Philippine school heads face a structural time problem.** DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024 gives administrative tasks to school heads and non-teaching staff, and EDCOM II reports DepEd's estimate of gaps of 12,078 Administrative Officer II and 44,285 Project Development Officer I positions. In October 2026 about half of public schools (about 23,000 of 45,928) had no principal item.
- **EDCOM II wants school heads measured on instructional leadership.** It recommends an Instructional Leadership Framework and an OPCRF for principals that puts classroom observation, coaching and curriculum implementation first. As of October 2026, DepEd has issued neither.

## What is instructional leadership?

**DepEd's definition.** [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/), on lesson planning and learning design, defines instructional leadership as "the deliberate practice of supporting teaching and learning through evidence-based feedback and contextualized coaching to systematically improve quality of teacher/ALS implementer practice and learner achievement". "Deliberate" means planned, not left to spare time; "evidence-based" means feedback grounded in what was seen and what learners produced; "contextualized" means coaching that fits the teacher and the class.

**The research definitions.** An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report on school leadership quotes Viviane Robinson's definition: instructional leadership refers to "those sets of leadership practice that involve the planning, evaluation, co-ordination, and improvement of teaching and learning". Robinson's New Zealand synthesis says "pedagogical leadership", because there "instructional" suggests directive teaching, and describes its "common core" as "close involvement by leadership in establishing an academic mission, monitoring and providing feedback on teaching and learning, and promoting professional development".

**A warning about the label.** Jason Grissom, Anna Egalite and Constance Lindsay, in their 2021 synthesis for the Wallace Foundation, say the term "does not have a clear, agreed-upon definition and lacks specificity". They write instead about "instructionally focused interactions with teachers": observation and evaluation, feedback and coaching, and a data-driven instructional program.

### Instructional leadership and instructional supervision

Instructional supervision is one part of instructional leadership: observing teaching, giving feedback and coaching. Instructional leadership also covers setting learning goals, coordinating the curriculum across grades, leading teachers' professional learning, using assessment results, and protecting teaching time. The [instructional supervision guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/instructional-supervision-school-heads) covers supervision step by step.

### Hallinger and Murphy's model

The classic research model of instructional leadership is the one Philip Hallinger developed with Murphy (Hallinger and Murphy, 1985). It grew out of the "effective schools" studies of the early 1980s, which found "strong, directive leadership focused on curriculum and instruction by the principal" in elementary schools that taught poor, urban children well. An OECD report, citing Hallinger and Murphy, names three major tasks of instructional management: defining the school's mission, managing the instructional program, and developing a positive school climate. Hallinger himself refers to the model's "mission and climate dimensions". At least one study in Robinson's synthesis, discussed below, measured instructional leadership with Hallinger's Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS).

Hallinger's 2007 comparison of instructional and transformational leadership lists the instructional leader's functions, adapted from Hallinger and Murphy (1985). The table gives them in plain words, with the DepEd policy where each now lives.

| Function in the model | Where it shows up in DepEd policy today |
|---|---|
| Articulate and communicate clear school goals | School goals in the school improvement plan (SIP); PPSSH indicator 3.4.1 on setting learning outcomes |
| Coordinate the curriculum | Collaborative planning and qualitative review of lesson plans (DO 016, s. 2026, para. 37) |
| Supervise and evaluate instruction | Walkthroughs and coaching (DO 016, para. 33); the teachers' performance appraisal |
| Monitor student progress | The school head's monitoring of assessment and grading (DepEd Order No. 015, s. 2026) |
| Protect instructional time | Removing administrative tasks from teachers (DO 002, s. 2024; DO 016, para. 37(c)) |
| Hold high expectations | Achievable and challenging learning outcomes (PPSSH 3.4.1) |
| Provide incentives for teachers and learners | Rewards and recognition (PPSSH strand 4.8); learner awards (DO 015, s. 2026) |
| Provide professional development for teachers | Learning action cells (DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016); PPSSH strand 4.5 |
| Maintain high visibility | Being seen in classrooms and modeling the school's priorities |

Hallinger names the model's weaknesses. Some scholars "questioned the capacity of principals to fulfill this heroic role"; others felt it was "simply too heavy a burden for any one person in the school to carry alone". And "in many cases principals have less expertise than the teachers whom they supervise", which makes supervision "a special challenge, particularly in secondary schools". The field's answer was to share the work. Hallinger quotes Lambert, "The days of the lone instructional leader are over", and the OECD report describes a shift from "hands on" principals to leaders who facilitate "a strong focus on instruction and learning in the school". DO 016, s. 2026, with its list of instructional leaders, follows the newer view.

### Robinson's five dimensions

Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd's 2009 Best Evidence Synthesis (BES) for the New Zealand Ministry of Education took a different route. Besides comparing models, it grouped the leadership practices measured in published studies into five dimensions and estimated how strongly each was related to student outcomes. Its main conclusion: "The more leaders focus their influence, their learning, and their relationships with teachers on the core business of teaching and learning, the greater their influence on student outcomes."

| Dimension (BES, Table 6) | What it includes | Mean effect size | DepEd counterpart |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Establishing goals and expectations | "Includes the setting, communicating, and monitoring of learning goals, standards, and expectations" with staff involvement | .42 | SIP goals; PPSSH 3.4.1 |
| 2. Resourcing strategically | "Involves aligning resource selection and allocation to priority teaching goals" | .31 | MOOE and materials tied to the SIP |
| 3. Planning, coordinating and evaluating teaching and the curriculum | Regular classroom visits with formative and summative feedback; school-wide curriculum coordination | .42 | DO 016 walkthroughs and qualitative reviews |
| 4. Promoting and participating in teacher learning and development | "Leadership that not only promotes but directly participates with teachers in formal or informal professional learning" | .84 | Taking part in learning action cells |
| 5. Ensuring an orderly and supportive environment | "Protecting time for teaching and learning by reducing external pressures and interruptions" | .27 | Learner discipline, child protection and protected class time |

The BES treats .2 as small, .4 as medium and .6 as large. Dimension 4 stands out: the BES calls it "empirical support for calls for leaders to be actively involved with their teachers as the leading learners in their schools". The BES warns against treating the list as a checklist. In some schools, it says, leaders "may need to focus on orderliness, safety, and civility before they can give fuller attention to the curriculum and teacher professional learning".

### Grissom's four behaviors

The 2021 Wallace synthesis groups what effective principals do into four behaviors: instructionally focused interactions with teachers; a productive school climate; collaboration and professional learning communities; and strategic management of personnel and resources, including the principal's own time. The first three are close to what this guide means by instructional leadership; the fourth is the management that serves it, the balance the guide to [leadership vs management for school heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/leadership-vs-management-school-heads) works through.

## Instructional vs transformational leadership

The short answer: instructional leadership works on teaching and learning directly, and transformational leadership works on the commitment and capacity of the staff.

| | Instructional leadership | Transformational leadership |
|---|---|---|
| Focus (BES, p. 37) | "Leader involvement in teaching and learning" | "Vision and the ability to motivate and inspire loyalty, commitment, and effort" |
| Typical strategy (Hallinger 2007) | Coordination and control; interpreted as more top-down and directive | Empowerment; individualized support; goals built "from the ground up" |
| Curriculum, supervision, monitoring, time | Explicit functions of the leader | No equivalent elements; the model "assumes 'others' will carry these out" |
| Mean effect on student outcomes (BES) | .42, from studies with academic outcomes | .11, from studies with mostly social outcomes |

The effect sizes need care. The BES calls its meta-analysis "admittedly limited", and the comparison is uneven: most of the transformational studies measured social outcomes such as engagement, while all of the instructional studies measured academic ones. The BES does not, however, ask leaders to choose between them. It says the theories are "perfectly compatible if pedagogical leadership is exercised in a collaborative rather than directive manner". Hallinger reaches a similar view: "the substantive similarities between the models are more significant than the differences", and he quotes Marks and Printy's conclusion that "instructional leadership can itself be transformational".

In practice, a DepEd school head aims the motivation and shared vision of transformational leadership at the instructional work: the reading goal, the coaching cycle, the LAC session. The guide to [transformational leadership for DepEd school heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/transformational-leadership-school-heads) covers the other side, and the overview of [leadership styles of school heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-leadership-styles) compares all the main models.

## Where DepEd puts instructional leadership: law and policy

Instructional leadership appears in the law of 2001, in two sets of standards, and in the 2026 orders on lesson planning and assessment.

| Issuance | What it says about instructional leadership | Status, October 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| RA 9155 (2001) | School head is "both an instructional leader and administrative manager" | In force |
| DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2010 (NCBS-SH) | Instructional Leadership was one of seven domains | Rescinded by DO 024, s. 2020 |
| DO 35, s. 2016 (learning action cells) | Supporting teachers' professional development is "one of the most vital functions of school heads/principals" | In force |
| DO 024, s. 2020 (PPSSH) | Domain 3 is about "providing instructional leadership" | In force |
| DO 002, s. 2024 and DepEd Order No. 005, s. 2024 | Administrative tasks go to school heads and non-teaching staff; teachers-in-charge are relieved of teaching | In force |
| DO 015, s. 2026 (assessment and grading) | The school head leads implementation, organizes LACs and monitors grading | In force |
| DO 016, s. 2026 (lesson planning) | Defines instructional leadership and instructional leaders; sets school-level duties | In force |
| EDCOM II Final Report (2026) | Recommends an Instructional Leadership Framework and an OPCRF that prioritizes instructional leadership | Recommendation, not policy |

### RA 9155: both an instructional leader and administrative manager

Section 7(E) of [RA 9155](https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2001/08/11/republic-act-no-9155/), the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, says the school head "shall be both an instructional leader and administrative manager". Three of its twelve areas of authority, on the learning environment, the curriculum and learning outcomes, and staff development, are instructional at their core; the guide to [RA 9155 duties of DepEd school heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ra-9155-school-head-duties) explains all twelve. The law says "both": a school head who manages well but never discusses teaching has done half the job, and so has one who visits classrooms but lets the money, records and staffing that teaching depends on drift.

### From the NCBS-SH to PPSSH Domain 3

DepEd's first standards for school heads, the National Competency-Based Standards for School Heads (NCBS-SH), were adopted by [DO 32, s. 2010](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2010/04/16/do-32-s-2010-national-adoption-and-implementation-of-the-national-competency-based-standards-for-school-heads/). [DepEd Memorandum No. 192, s. 2016](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/11/08/november-8-2016-dm-192-s-2016-school-heads-development-program-foundation-course/), on the School Heads Development Program, lists their seven domains; the second is Instructional Leadership.

DO 024, s. 2020 rescinded DO 32, s. 2010 and adopted the PPSSH. Its Domain 3, Focusing on Teaching and Learning, "emphasizes the school heads' commitment in providing instructional leadership towards improving competence among teachers and outcomes among learners". School heads in this domain "are expected to provide technical assistance on instruction that relates to curriculum, practice, and performance". It has eight strands, from curriculum review to learner discipline; six of them are in the PPSSH table below.

Instructional leadership also draws on strands outside Domain 3, such as monitoring and evaluation (1.7) and professional development of school personnel (4.5). The career stages show the role growing into a team. At Career Stage 1 the indicator for strand 3.2 asks for "knowledge and understanding" of teaching standards and pedagogies; at Career Stage 3 it reads: "Engage school personnel such as master teachers, head teachers and department heads in providing technical assistance to teachers". The guide [from NCBS-SH to PPSSH](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ncbs-sh-to-ppssh-school-head-standards) compares the two sets of standards, and [PPSSH Domain 3](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-3-teaching-and-learning) reads each strand with DepEd's assessment data.

### DO 016, s. 2026: a definition and a list of instructional leaders

DO 016, s. 2026, dated June 4, 2026, defines the instructional leader as "School Heads, Head Teachers, Master Teachers, ALS Focals, Education Program Supervisors for ALS, and other personnel designated to perform instructional leadership functions", such as grade level coordinators, learning area coordinators and department heads. The definition ends "subject to succeeding issuances on instructional leadership and supervision", so the order expects more to follow.

Paragraph 37 sets five measures at the school level. Four are duties of school heads (and ALS focals): collaborative lesson planning with instructional leaders positioned to support teachers, qualitative reviews of lesson plans, relieving teachers of administrative tasks, and participatory conferences on learner outcomes; the fifth has teachers archive their lesson plans in a system organized at the school level. Paragraph 33 encourages short, non-rated walkthroughs followed by feedback, and paragraph 41 asks school heads to "continuously assess the instructional needs of teachers, evidence of learning, and classroom realities". The order also directs central offices to "strengthen the instructional leadership and coaching dimensions" of the teachers' Performance Management and Evaluation System (PMES). The [DO 016 lesson planning guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-lesson-planning-do-016-s-2026) turns these duties into steps, and the guide to the [PMES for teachers](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-pmes-teachers) covers the rated appraisal.

### DO 015, s. 2026 and DO 35, s. 2016: assessment and teacher learning

[DO 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/), on classroom assessment and grading, says "The school, through the School Head, shall lead the implementation of these guidelines", including learning action cell (LAC) sessions and monitoring "the consistent application of grading policies". The [DO 015 grading guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-classroom-assessment-do-015-s-2026) explains the system.

[DO 35, s. 2016](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/06/07/do-35-s-2016-the-learning-action-cell-as-a-k-to-12-basic-education-program-school-based-continuing-professional-development-strategy-for-the-improvement-of-teaching-and-learning/) made the LAC DepEd's school-based professional development strategy. It says that "supporting CPD is one of the most vital functions of school heads/principals". Read with Robinson's dimension 4, which had the largest effect in the BES, this duty means not only scheduling LACs but taking part in them as a learner.

### What DepEd has not yet issued

EDCOM II, the Second Congressional Commission on Education, recommends an Instructional Leadership Framework, and DO 016 anticipates "succeeding issuances on instructional leadership and supervision". As of October 30, 2026, DepEd has issued no instructional leadership framework and no new guidelines on instructional supervision. Until it does, the duties above are the ones in force.

## What the research says instructional leadership does for learners

### Principals matter, mostly through teachers

The strongest recent evidence on principals is Grissom, Egalite and Lindsay's 2021 synthesis of 219 United States studies. For the size of principals' effects, it relies on six studies that followed the same schools and principals over several years, covering "more than 22,000 principals in four states and two urban school districts". Its findings:

- A 1 standard deviation increase in principal effectiveness raises the typical student's achievement by 0.13 standard deviations in math and 0.09 in reading.
- Replacing an elementary school principal at the 25th percentile of effectiveness with one at the 75th percentile would add about 2.9 months of math learning and 2.7 months of reading learning a year. The authors call the month conversions "a rough approximation".
- Per student, a principal's effect is a little smaller than a teacher's. But a principal affects all 483 students of a typical elementary school, while a teacher affects 21.
- Principals' effects are "mostly indirect, coming largely through their efforts to recruit, develop, support, and retain a talented teaching staff and create conditions for them to deliver strong instruction".

The authors conclude that Kenneth Leithwood and colleagues' 2004 judgment that school leadership is among the most important school-related influences on learning "holds up", and "may not have been stated strongly enough". They add a caveat: the estimate rests "on just six studies, conducted in just a few states and districts, which may not be representative".

Robinson's BES, summarized above, adds the comparison of leadership types: a mean effect size of .42 for instructional leadership, which it reads as moderate, against .11 for transformational leadership, "a very weak relationship".

### Visits without feedback may do little

Grissom and colleagues report a finding that matters for DepEd's new walkthroughs. In a study of 100 principals in Miami-Dade County, "time spent on coaching teachers is associated with higher student achievement growth, whereas time spent on informal classroom walk-throughs is unproductive, especially in high schools". The authors suggest walk-throughs fail "because they are seldom part of a broader coaching or feedback strategy", perhaps because principals use them "for monitoring or their own visibility". Feedback conversations are also often "brief and infrequent".

DO 016's walkthroughs exist to give "timely, constructive, and developmental feedback". A walkthrough with no conversation afterward is the kind of visit the research suggests is unproductive.

### How strong is this evidence?

Strong enough to act on, not strong enough to treat as settled.

- **It is mostly from other countries.** Grissom's synthesis included only studies with data collected in the United States. Of the 27 studies the BES found that linked leadership to student outcomes, 18 are from the United States, and only one is from New Zealand.
- **It is mostly correlational.** Grissom and colleagues write that "most studies had correlational research designs" and that many studies "make causal claims, even implicitly, and often do so on the basis of questionable evidence". The BES says its dimension analysis drew on cross-sectional evidence.
- **It is mostly about elementary schools and principals.** The BES says "Most of the studies were conducted in primary schools and focused on the leadership of the principal".
- **The numbers are small.** The BES dimensions rest on 6 to 9 studies each, and the authors note that "only 27 published studies were available for analysis".

Philippine evidence is thinner still. Our own analysis of the end-of-year Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) for SY 2025-26 found that schools with a principal had 9.7% struggling readers, against 10.9% in similar schools without one. That is an association, modest in size, and it does not show what principals did; the [report on CRLA results with and without a principal](https://nash.com.ph/blog/schools-with-and-without-principal-crla) explains the method.

## Why instructional leadership is hard in Philippine public schools

### Administrative work moved to the school head

[DO 002, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/01/26/january-26-2024-do-002-s-2024-immediate-removal-of-administrative-tasks-of-public-school-teachers/) removed administrative tasks from teachers' workload. "School Heads and non-teaching personnel shall have the sole responsibility to perform the administrative tasks", it says, and its list runs from personnel administration to records management and school programs. That protects teaching time, but where a school has no administrative staff, much of the work lands on the school head. The [guide to DO 002 and school support staff](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-do-002-administrative-tasks-support-staff) covers clustering, contract-of-service staff and who does which task.

The staff gap is large. EDCOM II's Final Report cites DepEd's proposed staffing standards, which show that "12,078 AO II positions and 44,285 PDO I positions still need to be created nationwide". It also reports that "Master Teachers and Department Heads are frequently called upon to assist with more complex administrative functions, including budgeting and project financing, further diverting their time from instructional leadership". The instructional leaders DO 016 names are often the ones doing the paperwork.

The problem is not only Philippine. A large 2010 United States study wrote that "The gap between how principals spend their time and what they are being encouraged to do has persisted for at least a half century", and named "Differentiated administrative staffing" as one change worth exploring. EDCOM II's call for Administrative Officer and Project Development Officer items is the same idea.

### Many schools have no principal

In October 2026 DepEd told the Senate that about half of public schools (about 23,000 of 45,928) had no principal item, down from 55% (26,453 of 48,113) in January 2026. About 2,000 of the 6,000 School Principal I items approved for 2026 had been filled by October 2026, and 914 teachers-in-charge had been reclassified. The proposed 2027 budget funds no new principal items. EDCOM II counts 13,313 schools with neither a principal nor a head teacher.

EDCOM II's Final Report says teacher-in-charge arrangements "provide limited instructional and administrative support". In its recommendations it calls them "inadequate for sustaining instructional leadership". [DO 005, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/04/29/april-29-2024-do-005-s-2024-rationalization-of-teachers-workload-in-public-schools-and-payment-of-teaching-overload/) says teachers-in-charge "shall be relieved of teaching and other related duties and perform fully the function of a school head", though in the exigency of service they may carry a teaching load "on the condition that all teachers in the school have been assigned the maximum teaching overload of two (2) hours". The guide to the [principal, head teacher or teacher-in-charge](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-head-teacher-teacher-in-charge) explains the roles.

### Few levers over staff and materials

Two of Robinson's dimensions, strategic resourcing and the orderly environment, depend on resources that Philippine school heads control only in part.

- **Hiring.** Under RA 9155 the school head recommends staff and the schools division superintendent hires them. In the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022, 32% of Filipino students attended a school where principals had the main responsibility for hiring teachers, against an OECD average of 60%.
- **Teacher shortages.** In PISA 2022, 43% of Filipino students were in schools whose principal reported that instruction was hindered by a lack of teaching staff, up from 19% in 2018.
- **Textbooks and materials.** In the Southeast Asia Primary Learning Metrics (SEA-PLM) 2024, only 52% of Filipino Grade 5 students were in classes where each student had a reading textbook, and 7% had none. Fifty-four percent attended schools whose head teacher reported a shortage of instructional materials "to a large extent", the highest of the six countries. SEA-PLM adds that "only in the Philippines was textbook availability associated with higher learning outcomes in the class".

In the BES, the link between securing instructional resources and achievement was small in a California sample and large in Marshall Islands schools, which "probably reflects a relative scarcity of teaching resources". In a school short of books, getting materials to the classes that need them is instructional leadership.

### What we know about Filipino principals' practice

Less than readers may assume. The Philippines has never taken part in the OECD's Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), which surveys principals about their leadership practices, so no TALIS figure describes Filipino principals. For context only: on average across OECD countries in TALIS 2024, "excessive administrative work remains principals' most frequently reported source of stress", cited by around two-thirds of principals. That is other countries' data.

The international surveys the Philippines does join report mostly on principals' credentials and school conditions. In the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2019, 80% of Filipino Grade 4 students had a principal with a postgraduate degree in educational leadership, against an international average of 36%, and their principals had an average of 9 years as principal. The published Philippine results of these surveys do not show how often Filipino principals observe classes or coach teachers.

Philippine research on the question is small. A 2025 study by Jonalyn Ulit, published in a small journal, collected open-ended written answers from 10 elementary school heads in the Schools Division of the City of Batac. It cannot be generalized, but the words match the national picture. One wrote: "I spend more time on paperwork and reports than in classrooms". Another: "I can observe and point out what's missing but turning that into real coaching for improvement is harder than it looks."

## What EDCOM II recommends

EDCOM II's Final Report, *Turning Point*, published in January 2026, makes three recommendations on school leadership in its teacher education chapter (printed page 300, summarized on page 32):

1. Every school should have a dedicated school head, with deployment based on school size, enrollment and geography "to avoid overreliance on teacher-in-charge arrangements".
2. "Require DepEd to develop an Instructional Leadership Framework that delineates their respective authorities, establishes accountability mechanisms, and puts in place coordination protocols across leadership levels". The executive summary says it would cover schools division superintendents, district supervisors and principals.
3. "Revise the Office Performance Commitment and Review (OPCRF) of principals to prioritize instructional leadership functions—such as classroom observation, teacher coaching, and curriculum implementation—over administrative and compliance tasks that currently dominate their workload."

Behind them is the report's finding that the lack of principals "contradicts Republic Act No. 9155's vision of the school principal as the instructional leader".

These are recommendations to DepEd, not DepEd rules. The guide to the [OPCRF for DepEd school heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/opcrf-school-heads-deped) explains what applies to school heads' performance ratings now, and the [EDCOM II Final Report guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/edcom-ii-final-report) summarizes the rest of the report.

## What the school head does: an instructional leader's week

The steps below turn the orders and the evidence above into a routine. No DepEd issuance sets a weekly schedule for school heads, so the order of steps and the sample week are suggestions.

1. **Set two or three learning goals with the teachers, from the school's own data.** Make each measurable and achievable within the year (PPSSH 3.4.1; BES dimension 1), and tie it to the [school improvement plan](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-school-improvement-plan).
2. **Name the instructional leaders and divide the classes among them.** DO 016 asks school heads to "strategically position instructional leaders to support teachers". Give each master teacher, head teacher or coordinator a group of teachers, based on what each does well.
3. **Block instructional time in your calendar before the administrative work fills it.** In one study that Grissom and colleagues review, principals with better time management spent more time on instruction and in classrooms. Move administrative tasks to non-teaching staff, and where you have none, ask the division office about clustering or contract-of-service help (DO 002, s. 2024).
4. **Visit classes briefly and often, and follow every visit with a conversation.** The conversation, not the visit, is what counts; the [instructional supervision guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/instructional-supervision-school-heads) covers how.
5. **Review a sample of lesson plans for quality, not completeness.** Base coaching on what you find, without adding forms (DO 016, para. 37(b)).
6. **Attend LAC sessions as a learner, not only as the person who signs the plan.** This is BES dimension 4, the largest effect in the synthesis.
7. **Look at assessment evidence with teachers each term, and act on it.** Use the participatory conferences DO 016 asks for: choose one or two changes, support them, and check next term whether they worked.
8. **Protect teaching time and order.** Keep programs and visitors out of class hours where you can, and handle discipline cases so that teachers can teach (BES dimension 5).

### A sample week

This example is for a school head of an elementary school with about 15 teachers, one master teacher and grade-level coordinators. It keeps the first part of most days for instructional work.

| Day | Instructional work (morning) | Other work |
|---|---|---|
| Monday | 30-minute meeting with the master teacher and coordinators: last week's walkthrough notes, this week's one focus, who visits which classes | Reports, MOOE, correspondence |
| Tuesday | Two or three walkthroughs in Grades 1 to 3, with a short conversation with each teacher the same day | Parent and community concerns |
| Wednesday | Qualitative review of three lesson plans, with notes to use in coaching | Property, records, division requirements |
| Thursday | Walkthroughs in Grades 4 to 6; one longer coaching conversation with a new teacher; LAC session in the afternoon if scheduled | Meetings |
| Friday | Look at learner work samples or a quick assessment with one grade group; plan next week's focus | Administrative catch-up |

Each term, add a participatory conference on learner outcomes and a review of the term's assessment results.

### If you are a teacher-in-charge or lead a small school

A teacher-in-charge who also teaches should keep the core: one learning goal, at least one walkthrough and conversation a week, and every LAC session. The BES notes that in New Zealand's smallest schools, "where there is no leadership 'team', most professional leadership functions are carried out by the principal". DO 35, s. 2016 also allows LACs at the district and division levels, which helps small schools with only a few teachers.

### If you lead a large secondary school

No school head can be expert in every subject, the problem Hallinger flags for secondary schools. There, instructional leadership runs mainly through head teachers, department heads and master teachers: agree with them on the goals, give them time to coach, and meet them regularly about what they see.

## The instructional leadership team

DO 016, s. 2026 makes instructional leadership a team role, and the school head's work is to build that team, protect its time, and keep it on the same few goals. A practical first step: list what each instructional leader did last month, separate the instructional work from the administrative, and move the administrative part where DO 002, s. 2024 puts it. The guide to [distributed leadership in DepEd](https://nash.com.ph/blog/distributed-leadership-deped-schools) covers the team in detail.

## Instructional leadership and the PPSSH: strands and Career Stage 1 indicators

The table gives the Career Stage 1 indicators that instructional leadership draws on most, in the words of the PPSSH, and what each asks of an aspiring school head in this area. The [PPSSH guide](https://nash.com.ph/ppssh) lists all indicators at the four career stages.

| Strand | Career Stage 1 indicator | What it asks in instructional leadership |
|---|---|---|
| 1.7 Monitoring and evaluation processes and tools | 1.7.1 Display knowledge and understanding of monitoring and evaluation processes and tools to promote learner achievement. | Knowing how to track progress on the school's learning goals and use the results |
| 3.1 School-based review, contextualization and implementation of learning standards | 3.1.1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of school-based review, contextualization and implementation of learning standards. | Coordinating the curriculum across grades; reviewing lesson plans against standards |
| 3.2 Teaching standards and pedagogies | 3.2.1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of teaching standards and pedagogies within and across learning areas to provide technical assistance to teachers to improve their teaching practice. | Knowing good teaching well enough to coach it |
| 3.3 Teacher performance feedback | 3.3.1 Demonstrate understanding of the use of feedback obtained from learners, parents and other stakeholders to help teachers improve their performance. | Using evidence from learners, not only the observer's impression |
| 3.4 Learner achievement and other performance indicators | 3.4.1 Set achievable and challenging learning outcomes to support learner achievement and the attainment of other performance indicators. | Setting the school's learning goals with teachers |
| 3.5 Learning assessment | 3.5.1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of learning assessment tools, strategies and utilization of results consistent with curriculum requirements. | Using assessment results to plan support, under DO 015, s. 2026 |
| 3.6 Learning environment | 3.6.1 Demonstrate understanding of managing a learner-friendly, inclusive and healthy learning environment. | Protecting time and order so that teaching can happen |
| 4.5 Professional development of school personnel | 4.5.1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of professional development in enhancing strengths and in addressing performance gaps among school personnel. | Leading and joining LACs built on observed needs |
| 4.6 Leadership development in individuals and teams | 4.6.1 Identify strengths, capabilities and potentials of individuals and teams in performing leadership roles and responsibilities. | Choosing and positioning the school's instructional leaders |

Strands 3.7 (career awareness) and 3.8 (learner discipline) complete Domain 3. The guide to [PPSSH Domain 3](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-3-teaching-and-learning) covers all eight strands.

## Practice: how the NASH may test this

[DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2025/08/11/august-11-2025-dm-069-s-2025-administration-of-the-national-assessment-for-school-heads-for-fiscal-year-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 instructional leadership, expect situational items in which every option sounds supportive of learning, and the best one connects the school's evidence, the teachers and a follow-through. The three items below are original practice items, not actual or recalled NASH items. Each option is scored 3-2-1-0, as in the [NASH practice questions with answers](https://nash.com.ph/blog/nash-practice-questions-with-answers). Timed sets are on the [NASH Reviewer assessment page](https://nash.com.ph/assessment).

### Question 1

*Indicator 3.4.1, Learner achievement and other performance indicators. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.*

You are the newly designated school head of a public elementary school with 14 teachers. The beginning-of-year reading assessment shows that 38% of this year's Grade 3 learners read below grade level. At the first planning meeting of the school year, you lead the discussion of the school's reading goal. What is the most appropriate action?

- **A.** Adopt a goal of zero Grade 3 learners below grade level by the end of the year, to show the school's full commitment to the division's reading program.
- **B.** Set, with the Grade 1 to 3 teachers, a goal to bring the share below grade level from 38% to about 25% by year end, with a check each term and support for each section.
- **C.** Set a goal to bring the share below grade level from 38% to about 25% by year end, announce it at the meeting, and assign the reading coordinator to run the program.
- **D.** Keep a general goal to improve reading so that teachers are not discouraged, and focus the year on reading activities such as a reading month and a reading contest.

**Answer and explanation**

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

- **A (1 point, Unistructural).** The goal is challenging but not achievable from 38% in one year, and it comes from outside the school's own evidence. It addresses only one side of the indicator.
- **B (3 points, Relational).** The goal is measurable, challenging and achievable, set with the teachers who must reach it, and tied to term checks and support. It connects the data, the teachers and the follow-through.
- **C (2 points, Multistructural).** The target is sound, but setting it alone and handing it to one coordinator leaves out the teachers' involvement and the monitoring that make a goal work.
- **D (0 points, Prestructural).** A goal with no measure cannot be monitored, and activities are not outcomes.

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.4.1 asks the school head to "Set achievable and challenging learning outcomes". Robinson's synthesis describes effective goal setting as setting, communicating and monitoring goals "and the involvement of staff and others in the process so that there is clarity and consensus about goals".

*Indicator 3.4.1: Set achievable and challenging learning outcomes to support learner achievement and the attainment of other performance indicators.*

*Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020 (PPSSH); Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009), Table 6.*

### Question 2

*Indicator 3.5.1, Learning assessment. Career Stage 1, Conceptual, Moderate.*

Which statement best describes how a school head should use the results of classroom assessments under DepEd's current policies on assessment and lesson planning?

- **A.** Results are mainly the teachers' concern, and the school head checks that grades are recorded and submitted on time in the official forms and systems.
- **B.** The school head ranks teachers by their learners' grades each term and gives recognition to the teachers whose classes show the highest results.
- **C.** The school head reviews results with teachers by section and competency, plans support in LAC sessions, and checks the next term whether the support worked.
- **D.** The school head reviews results with teachers each term and requires the teachers of low-performing sections to submit written remediation plans for approval.

**Answer and explanation**

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

- **A (1 point, Unistructural).** Proper recording is one of the school head's duties under DO 015, s. 2026, but it treats results as paperwork rather than as evidence for teaching.
- **B (0 points, Prestructural).** Grades reflect learners' starting points as well as teaching, and ranking teachers by them misuses assessment results. Nothing in this option helps learners improve.
- **C (3 points, Relational).** This links the results, the teachers' professional learning and a check on whether the support worked, which fits the duties DO 015 and DO 016 give the school head.
- **D (2 points, Multistructural).** Reviewing results with teachers is right, but adding approval paperwork goes against DO 016, which says increased support "shall not result in additional documentation requirements" and asks school heads to "reduce unnecessary documentation requirements", and it leaves the follow-through to the teachers alone.

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.5.1 asks for understanding of the "utilization of results consistent with curriculum requirements". DO 015, s. 2026 makes the school head lead the implementation of assessment and grading and organize LAC sessions. DO 016, s. 2026 asks school heads to "continuously assess the instructional needs of teachers, evidence of learning, and classroom realities".

*Indicator 3.5.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of learning assessment tools, strategies and utilization of results consistent with curriculum requirements.*

*Sources: DepEd Order No. 015, s. 2026, Section X(D); DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, paragraphs 29, 37(c) and 41; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.*

### Question 3

*Indicator 4.6.1, Leadership development in individuals and teams. Career Stage 1, Situational, Difficult.*

You lead a public secondary school with 48 teachers, two master teachers and three head teachers. The school has no administrative officer, so the two master teachers spend most afternoons on liquidation reports and the property inventory. Teachers in two learning areas ask for help with the new lesson planning guidelines. What is the most appropriate action?

- **A.** Ask the master teachers to add lesson planning coaching to their afternoons and to submit weekly coaching reports, so that their instructional work can be monitored.
- **B.** Coach all 48 teachers yourself through weekly walkthroughs, and leave the master teachers on the reports since they already know the processes well.
- **C.** Identify what each master teacher and head teacher does best, assign each a group of teachers to coach, and move the reports to yourself and non-teaching help, asking the division for support.
- **D.** Assign the three head teachers to coach the teachers in their learning areas on lesson planning, and keep the master teachers on the reports until an administrative officer arrives.

**Answer and explanation**

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

- **A (1 point, Unistructural).** Using the master teachers as coaches is right, but it piles coaching on top of administrative work and adds reports, which DO 016, s. 2026 discourages.
- **B (0 points, Prestructural).** No school head can coach 48 teachers alone, and keeping teachers on administrative tasks goes against DO 002, s. 2024.
- **C (3 points, Relational).** This identifies each leader's strengths, positions them as instructional leaders as DO 016 asks, and moves administrative work to where DO 002 places it, using the division's clustering or contract-of-service options.
- **D (2 points, Multistructural).** The head teachers are well used, but the master teachers' instructional potential is wasted, and the administrative tasks stay with teaching personnel.

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.6.1 asks the school head to "Identify strengths, capabilities and potentials of individuals and teams in performing leadership roles". DO 016, s. 2026 names master teachers and head teachers as instructional leaders and asks school heads to "strategically position" them. DO 002, s. 2024 gives administrative tasks to school heads and non-teaching personnel, and lets division offices cluster non-teaching staff or hire contract-of-service personnel. EDCOM II reports that master teachers are often diverted from instructional leadership by exactly this kind of work.

*Indicator 4.6.1: Identify strengths, capabilities and potentials of individuals and teams in performing leadership roles and responsibilities.*

*Sources: DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024; DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, paragraphs 4(d) and 37(a); EDCOM II Final Report (2026), p. 287; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.*

## Frequently asked questions

### What is instructional leadership in DepEd?

DO 016, s. 2026 defines instructional leadership as "the deliberate practice of supporting teaching and learning through evidence-based feedback and contextualized coaching to systematically improve quality of teacher/ALS implementer practice and learner achievement". In the PPSSH it is the core of Domain 3, Focusing on Teaching and Learning.

### Who are the instructional leaders in a DepEd school?

Under DO 016, s. 2026, instructional leaders are school heads, head teachers, master teachers, ALS focals, Education Program Supervisors for ALS, and other designated personnel such as grade level coordinators, learning area coordinators, department heads, and head teachers reclassified as Teachers V to VII.

### What are the three dimensions of instructional leadership?

Hallinger and Murphy's model has three parts, which an OECD report summarizes as defining the school's mission, managing the instructional program, and developing a positive school climate; Hallinger calls them dimensions. Each contains specific functions, such as coordinating the curriculum, supervising and evaluating instruction, and protecting instructional time.

### What is the difference between instructional leadership and instructional supervision?

Instructional supervision, meaning observing teaching, giving feedback and coaching, is one part of instructional leadership. Instructional leadership also covers setting learning goals, coordinating the curriculum, leading teachers' professional learning, using assessment results and protecting teaching time.

### Is instructional leadership more effective than transformational leadership?

In Robinson and colleagues' 2009 synthesis, instructional leadership had a mean effect size of .42 on student outcomes and transformational leadership .11. The comparison is uneven, because the two sets of studies measured different outcomes, and the authors say the two approaches are compatible when instructional leadership is collaborative rather than directive.

### Does DepEd have an instructional leadership framework?

Not as of October 30, 2026. EDCOM II recommends that DepEd develop one, and DO 016, s. 2026 refers to "succeeding issuances on instructional leadership and supervision".

## More on school leadership

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

- [Leadership Styles of School Heads: What the Evidence Says](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-leadership-styles)
- [Transformational Leadership for DepEd School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/transformational-leadership-school-heads)
- [Distributed Leadership in DepEd: Head and Master Teachers](https://nash.com.ph/blog/distributed-leadership-deped-schools)
- [OPCRF for DepEd School Heads in 2026: What Applies Now](https://nash.com.ph/blog/opcrf-school-heads-deped)
- [From NCBS-SH to PPSSH: DepEd Standards for School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ncbs-sh-to-ppssh-school-head-standards)
- [Principal, Head Teacher or Teacher-in-Charge in DepEd](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-head-teacher-teacher-in-charge)
- [RA 9155 Duties of DepEd School Heads: 12 Areas Explained](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ra-9155-school-head-duties)
- [DepEd Instructional Supervision: Observing and Coaching](https://nash.com.ph/blog/instructional-supervision-school-heads)
- [DepEd Learning Action Cell (LAC) Guidelines: DO 35, s. 2016](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-learning-action-cell)
- [DepEd ILAW Lesson Plan, DO 016, s. 2026: School Head's Role](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-lesson-planning-do-016-s-2026)
- [DepEd Grading System, DO 015, s. 2026: School Head's Role](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-classroom-assessment-do-015-s-2026)
- [PPSSH Domain 3: Teaching and Learning With DepEd Data](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-3-teaching-and-learning)
- On the app: [The roles of a school head](https://nash.com.ph/school-head-roles), the six roles in one guide; the [principal shortage](https://nash.com.ph/principal-shortage) data; and the [PPSSH guide](https://nash.com.ph/ppssh)

## Sources

- [Republic Act No. 9155, Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001](https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2001/08/11/republic-act-no-9155/), Sections 7(C) and 7(E), Official Gazette.
- [DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2010](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2010/04/16/do-32-s-2010-national-adoption-and-implementation-of-the-national-competency-based-standards-for-school-heads/), National Adoption and Implementation of the National Competency-Based Standards for School Heads.
- [DepEd Memorandum No. 192, s. 2016](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/11/08/november-8-2016-dm-192-s-2016-school-heads-development-program-foundation-course/), School Heads Development Program Foundation Course (Enclosure No. 1, for the NCBS-SH domains).
- [DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/06/07/do-35-s-2016-the-learning-action-cell-as-a-k-to-12-basic-education-program-school-based-continuing-professional-development-strategy-for-the-improvement-of-teaching-and-learning/), The Learning Action Cell as a K to 12 Basic Education Program School-Based Continuing Professional Development Strategy, paragraphs 7 and 27.
- [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.
- [DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/01/26/january-26-2024-do-002-s-2024-immediate-removal-of-administrative-tasks-of-public-school-teachers/), Immediate Removal of Administrative Tasks of Public School Teachers.
- [DepEd Order No. 005, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/04/29/april-29-2024-do-005-s-2024-rationalization-of-teachers-workload-in-public-schools-and-payment-of-teaching-overload/), Rationalization of Teachers' Workload in Public Schools and Payment of Teaching Overload.
- [DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2025/08/11/august-11-2025-dm-069-s-2025-administration-of-the-national-assessment-for-school-heads-for-fiscal-year-2025/), Administration of the National Assessment for School Heads for Fiscal Year 2025.
- [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, Section X(D), p. 19.
- [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, paragraphs 4(c)–(d), 29, 33, 34(c), 37 and 41.
- EDCOM II (2026), [*Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform*, Final Report](https://edcom2.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/EDCOM-II-Y03-for-web-012626_final.pdf), printed pp. 32, 287, 297, 298, 300 and 390.
- EDCOM II, "EDCOM pushes for 2027 budget to close the gap in school principals nationwide", news release, 18 October 2026.
- Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). [*How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research*](https://doi.org/10.59656/EL-SB1065.001). The Wallace Foundation. Pages xiii–xv, 30, 40, 59, 61–62, 68, 73, 82–83, and notes on pp. 100–101.
- Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). [*School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Best evidence synthesis iteration*](https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2515/60170). New Zealand Ministry of Education. Pages 37, 40, 78, 84, 87–92, 95, 98, 101–102, 205, 252.
- Hallinger, P. (2007). [Research on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership: Retrospect and prospect](https://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2007/7). ACER Research Conference 2007, *The leadership challenge: Improving learning in schools*. Australian Council for Educational Research. Table 1 (functions adapted from Hallinger & Murphy, 1985).
- OECD (2016). [*School leadership for learning: Insights from TALIS 2013*](https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264258341-en). OECD Publishing. Pages 46, 53 and 60 (definitions only; the Philippines did not take part in TALIS).
- Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). [*Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning*](https://doi.org/10.59656/EL-SB3935.001). The Wallace Foundation. Page 103.
- OECD (2026). [*The value of school principals in TALIS 2024*](https://doi.org/10.1787/a2cdb777-en). OECD Publishing. Page 21. Participation: [OECD, TALIS participants](https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/talis/talis-participants.html).
- OECD (2023). [*PISA 2022 results: Factsheets – Philippines*](https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/11/pisa-2022-results-volume-i-and-ii-country-notes_2fca04b9/philippines_dbf92b65/a0882a2d-en.pdf). Pages 7–8.
- UNICEF & SEAMEO (2025). [*SEA-PLM 2024 main regional report: Children's learning in 6 Southeast Asian countries*](https://www.unicef.org/asia-pacific/reports/sea-plm-2024-main-regional-report). Figures 4.33 and 4.43, pp. 115 and 123.
- Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). [*TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science*](https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-results/). Boston College. Exhibits 6.19 and 6.21 (Grade 4).
- Ulit, J. C. (2025). [The impact of school heads' instructional leadership on teaching and learning outcomes: Philippine's context](https://doi.org/10.62025/dwijmh.v4i3.188). *Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities, 4*(3), 2109–2126. A small qualitative study of 10 school heads in one division; pp. 2120–2121.
- NASH Reviewer data report: [CRLA results in schools with and without a principal](https://nash.com.ph/blog/schools-with-and-without-principal-crla).

*Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: Republic Act No. 9155; DepEd Orders No. 32, s. 2010, No. 35, s. 2016, No. 024, s. 2020, No. 002 and No. 005, s. 2024, and No. 015 and No. 016, s. 2026; DepEd Memoranda No. 192, s. 2016 and No. 069, s. 2025; EDCOM II; Grissom, Egalite and Lindsay (2021); Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009); Hallinger (2007); OECD; UNICEF and SEAMEO; TIMSS 2019.*

---

© 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, October 30). *Instructional Leadership for DepEd School Heads*. NASH Reviewer. https://nash.com.ph/blog/instructional-leadership-deped-school-heads. 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