Instructional supervision in Department of Education (DepEd) public schools is how a school head plans classroom observations, observes teaching, gives feedback and coaches teachers. Two issuances now shape it: DepEd Order (DO) No. 016, s. 2026, which asks instructional leaders for frequent, non-rated walkthroughs, and DepEd Memorandum (DM) No. 089, s. 2025, which introduces the Instructional Supervisory (IS) Plan.

It is written for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH, formerly the NQESH) and for new school heads. The work maps to the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), strands 3.2 and 3.3 in Domain 3 and strands 4.5 and 4.6 in Domain 4. Other posts in this series cover lesson-plan review under DO 016, s. 2026, the rated appraisal under the Performance Management and Evaluation System (PMES) and learning action cells. This post covers the everyday practice: planning supervision, observing, giving feedback and coaching.

Key points

  • Instructional supervision is part of the school head’s legal job. Republic Act (RA) No. 9155 defines the school head as the person responsible for “the administrative and instructional supervision of the school or cluster of schools”. The PPSSH turns that duty into indicators on technical assistance and feedback to teachers.
  • DepEd asks for short, frequent, non-rated walkthroughs. DO 016, s. 2026 encourages walkthroughs “typically lasting approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes” so that teachers get feedback “without the pressure associated with formal performance evaluation”.
  • Supervision starts with a plan for the year. Under DM 089, s. 2025, each teacher’s rater prepares an IS Plan from the teachers’ Individual Development Plans (IDPs). The plan decides who gets which support, from whom, and when.
  • Feedback starts from evidence, not from a verdict. The observer records what the teacher and the learners said and did. The teacher and the observer then interpret the record together and agree on one change to try.
  • Coaching follows a structure and fits the teacher. The GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Way forward) gives a coaching conversation its order. DO 016 tells instructional leaders to give “differentiated and targeted support”, so a new teacher and a master teacher need different kinds of help.
  • Coaching visits and rated observations are kept apart. Walkthroughs are formative and are not rated. The full-period rated observation belongs to the PMES for teachers and follows its own protocol.

What instructional supervision is

Instructional supervision is the planned, continuing work of watching teaching, discussing it with the teacher on the basis of evidence, and supporting the teacher to improve learning. It is different from performance evaluation. Evaluation produces a rating for a period; supervision produces a better next lesson. A school head does both, but for different purposes and with different tools.

DO 016, s. 2026 gives the current DepEd definition. It defines instructional leadership as “the deliberate practice of supporting teaching and learning through evidence-based feedback and contextualized coaching”. The aim, in the same definition, is to improve both teacher practice and learner achievement. Two phrases matter for this post: the feedback rests on evidence, and the coaching fits the teacher’s context.

The order also says who does this work. Its list of instructional leaders includes School Heads, Head Teachers and Master Teachers. It also includes other designated personnel, such as Grade Level Coordinators, Learning Area Coordinators and Department Heads. The school head is therefore not the only supervisor. The school head leads a team of supervisors and decides how their time is used.

Why the law makes it the school head’s core job

RA No. 9155 is the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001. Section 4 defines the school head as “a person responsible for the administrative and instructional supervision of the school or cluster of schools”. Section 7 adds that the school head “shall be both an instructional leader and administrative manager”. The same section makes the school head responsible for implementing the school curriculum, for higher learning outcomes and for encouraging staff development.

RA No. 10533, the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, sets the standards for the curriculum itself. Section 5(e) says the curriculum “shall use pedagogical approaches that are constructivist, inquiry-based, reflective, collaborative and integrative”. These five approaches are part of what a supervisor looks for in a classroom. They are law, not a school’s preference.

The PPSSH, adopted by DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, expects school heads in Domain 3 to “provide technical assistance on instruction that relates to curriculum, practice, and performance”. Its glossary defines technical assistance as “coaching, guiding and empowering school personnel”. Supervision is how that assistance reaches a classroom.

What instructional leadership looks like day to day

Research on principals supports the same priorities. Joseph Blase and Jo Blase (2000) asked teachers which behaviors of their principals improved their teaching. The teachers named talking with them about instruction: making suggestions, giving feedback, modeling good teaching, asking for their opinions and praising effective teaching. They also named support for growth: encouraging collaboration and providing professional development.

Richard DuFour (2002) argued that a principal should move attention from what teachers teach to what learners learn. He called this being a learning leader. For supervision, this means looking at learners as much as at the teacher: what they are doing, saying and producing.

Supervision is one part of a school head’s instructional leadership. Instructional Leadership for DepEd School Heads explains the wider role and the evidence behind it, and Distributed Leadership in DepEd: Head and Master Teachers shows how the work is shared with other instructional leaders in the school.

Who does what in instructional supervision

Instructional supervision in a school is shared work. DO 016, s. 2026 and DM 089, s. 2025 divide the roles as follows.

Person Role in supervision Main documents
School head Leads supervision for the whole school. Positions instructional leaders to support teachers and leads qualitative reviews of lesson plans. Conducts walkthroughs and coaching, and protects teachers’ time from administrative tasks (DO 016, items 33, 37 and 41). Rates some teachers and approves the ratings of others (DM 089, Table 18). IS Plan, Performance Monitoring and Coaching Form (PMCF)
Master teachers, head teachers, department heads, assistant school heads Instructional leaders under DO 016. Under DM 089, master teachers, department heads and assistant school heads rate many teachers; for example, a master teacher rates an elementary teacher and the school head approves. As raters they prepare the IS Plan for their ratees, observe, debrief and coach. IS Plan, PMCF, Classroom Observation Tool (COT)
Teachers Assess themselves on the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST), prepare an IDP, use the DO 016 Lesson Planning Rubric as a self-check, and reflect on each lesson. IDP, lesson plan
Schools Division Office (SDO), through the Curriculum Implementation Division (CID) Gives technical assistance on lesson planning and instructional leadership, and orients school personnel on formative coaching and mentoring (DO 016, items 36 and 40). Division plans and technical assistance notes

In DM 089’s rater matrix, where an elementary school has no master teacher, the school head is the teacher’s rater. In a small school, the school head may be the only supervisor. The plan below then matters even more, because one person’s time must cover every classroom.

Planning instructional supervision for the school year

A supervision plan answers three questions for each teacher: what to work on, what kind of support to give, and when. Without a plan, a school head tends to visit the same few classrooms, usually those of struggling teachers or those near the office.

DM 089, s. 2025 makes the plan a PMES document. Item 27 says the rater prepares the IS Plan, “guided by the Individual Development Plans (IDPs) of teachers being handled as ratees”. The plan is prepared in Phase I of the PMES cycle, which runs from one month before to one month after the official start of classes. It records the agreed schedule of full-period classroom observations. It also includes the professional development opportunities identified from each teacher’s IDP, self-assessment results and observed performance gaps.

The IS Plan then guides the rest of the year. DM 089 calls it “a guiding document in Phase II”. Its job is to make support, observation feedback and coaching respond to each teacher’s actual needs.

Inputs to the plan

Build the plan from evidence, not from impressions.

  1. Each teacher’s IDP and self-assessment. These say what the teacher wants to strengthen this year.
  2. Last year’s observation records and PMCF entries. These show the focus areas that were set and how far each teacher moved.
  3. Learner data. Reading and numeracy results and grade-level assessment results show where learning is weakest.
  4. New assignments. DO 016 requires structured guidance for teachers who are newly hired, newly assigned to a learning area, or identified as needing more support.
  5. Your own capacity. Count the hours you and the other instructional leaders can give to classrooms each week, after other duties.

A supervision plan template (ours)

DM 089 names the IS Plan and what it must contain. The layout below is our own example, not a DepEd form. It shows one school head’s plan for four teachers in an elementary school with one master teacher. It uses the three terms of the school calendar under DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026.

Teacher (situation) Focus for the year Kind of support Who leads When Evidence of progress
Teacher A, Grade 1, newly hired Checks for understanding during reading lessons Frequent walkthroughs, a coaching cycle, collaborative planning in the learning action cell Master teacher, with the school head All three terms, most often in Term 1 Learners’ oral reading records; fewer learners left behind in group reading
Teacher B, Grade 5 Mathematics, six years of service Scaffolding for word problems (from the IDP) Two coaching cycles; one peer observation of a colleague School head Terms 1 and 2 Seatwork on word problems; the teacher’s own reflection notes
Teacher C, Grade 6 Science, master teacher Leading peer coaching on inquiry-based lessons School head as reflection partner; leads a learning action cell session Teacher C, supported by the school head Term 2 Colleagues’ lessons that use guided inquiry
Teacher D, Grade 3, fifteen years of service, concerns from learner data Questioning and checks for understanding Short, frequent walkthroughs with brief debriefs; one focused coaching cycle School head All three terms Learners’ answers in class; term assessment results

Add the agreed dates of each teacher’s rated observations to the same plan, as DM 089 requires. Coaching visits and rated visits should then not fall in the same week. Review the plan at the end of each term and change it when the evidence changes.

Kinds of classroom observation

A school head uses different kinds of observation for different purposes. The table compares them.

Kind Length Rated? Purpose Basis
Walkthrough or short-period observation About 10 to 15 minutes, or longer when schedules permit No Quick, frequent look at how lesson plans work in practice; timely feedback DO 016, item 33; DM 089, item 37
Focused observation (our term) Part or all of a period No Watching one agreed focus closely during a coaching cycle Good practice under DO 016’s call for coaching
Peer observation Part or all of a period No A teacher learns from a colleague; builds shared practice DO 016, item 26; DM 089, item 37(c)
Full-period classroom observation The entire class period Yes Evidence for the teacher’s performance rating with the COT DM 089, items 41 to 58

Walkthroughs under DO 016, s. 2026

Under DO 016 item 33, instructional leaders “are highly encouraged to conduct frequent, non-rated, formative walkthrough observations”. These typically last “approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes, or longer when schedules permit”. Their purpose is “to observe how lesson plans are enacted in practice”. The same item says these walkthroughs give “timely, constructive, and developmental feedback without the pressure associated with formal performance evaluation”.

DM 089 describes the same kind of visit and calls it the “monitoring by walking around strategy”. It says that after each observation “a brief debriefing session will be conducted to discuss findings, celebrate successes, and outline actionable steps for improvement”. A walkthrough without a debrief is only an inspection.

The rated observation, briefly

The full-period classroom observation under DM 089 is a rating event with its own protocol. The teacher and the observer hold a pre-observation conference on the COT rubric, and the observer avoids giving any feedback during the lesson. A post-observation conference follows “immediately after the observation or within three (3) days thereafter”. The number and timing of rated observations, and the rubrics, are explained in our post on the PMES for teachers.

Keep the two kinds of visit apart. DM 089 item 50 discourages observers from giving technical assistance on the lesson plan “that will be used in the actual evaluative/rated observation”. Coaching happens in the many visits before and after; the rated visit records what the teacher does on a normal day.

What to look for during a classroom observation

DO 016, s. 2026 names four things that monitoring, coaching and feedback should focus on. Two of them are how intentionally the teacher applies the Learning Design Principles and how the teacher uses evidence of learning to improve lessons. The order lists eight Learning Design Principles that give DepEd “a common instructional language”. The look-fors below are ours, written to help an observer see each principle in a real lesson.

The order notes that “not all principles are expected to be evident in every lesson”. A 12-minute walkthrough will show two or three at most. Look for the ones the teacher planned and the one you agreed to work on.

Look-fors by Learning Design Principle (ours)

Learning Design Principle (DO 016) What you may see or hear A question for the debrief
Clear Goals and Teaching Learners can say what they are learning today. The teacher models a step before asking learners to do it. Examples are concrete and the language is simple. “If I asked three learners what today’s lesson is for, what would they say?”
Scaffolding The teacher gives prompts, worked examples or partly completed tasks, then removes them as learners succeed (“I do, we do, you do”). “At what point did you let learners try it on their own, and how did you decide?”
Checks for Understanding The teacher sees answers from many learners, not just volunteers: show-me boards, hand signals, exit slips, calling on learners who did not raise a hand. Teaching changes after the check. “What did the check tell you, and what did you do next?”
Active Retrieval and Spacing Short recall of earlier lessons, from memory, without notes; earlier skills return in new tasks. “Which earlier competency did learners need today, and how did you bring it back?”
Self-awareness and Metacognition Learners set a target, check their own work against criteria, or explain how they got an answer. “How do learners know whether their own work is correct?”
Social Learning Structured talk with roles or a clear task: think-pair-share, assigned roles in groups, academic language in use. “What did the pairs have to produce together?”
Values and Purpose Integration Learners connect the lesson to their own lives, community or values without a long lecture. “Where did learners see why this matters to them?”
Inclusion Tasks, materials and ways to answer allow every learner to take part, with supports for learners with disabilities and a challenge for fast finishers. “Which learners could not show what they know today, and what would help them?”

Look-fors by pedagogical approach in RA 10533 (ours)

The five approaches in Section 5(e) of RA 10533 overlap with the principles above. The table helps an observer tell real practice from its outward form.

Approach What it looks like when it is happening Signs that it is not yet happening
Constructivist Learners build on what they already know; the teacher draws out prior ideas and misconceptions before teaching. The teacher explains everything first and learners only repeat it.
Inquiry-based Learners investigate a question, collect evidence and explain results. The teacher may set the question, but learners do part of the thinking about method or conclusion. Learners copy steps from the board to confirm a result already printed in the textbook.
Reflective Learners think about what and how they learned; the teacher leaves time for it. “Reflection” is a single question at the end of the period, and no learner answers it.
Collaborative Each group member has a part, and the task cannot be done by one learner alone. The teacher circulates and listens. One learner does the work while the others watch.
Integrative Learners connect ideas across learning areas and to real situations. Links to other subjects are named by the teacher but not used by learners.

Look at the learners, not only the teacher

PPSSH indicator 3.3.1 is about feedback “obtained from learners, parents and other stakeholders”. During a walkthrough, learners are a source of evidence. Sit or kneel beside two or three learners and ask: “What are you learning right now?” and “How will you know you did it well?” Look at their notebooks or seatwork. Their answers show what the lesson achieved, which is the reason for supervision.

How to collect evidence without judging

Feedback depends on the quality of the notes behind it. Write what a video camera would record: words, actions, times and counts. Leave interpretation for the conversation, where the teacher can add what you did not see.

A judgment (avoid) Evidence (write this instead)
“The class was noisy.” “10:12. Four groups talking about the task. One group of five talking about a basketball game. Teacher at the desk checking papers.”
“Good questioning.” “Teacher asked 9 questions in 12 minutes. Seven had one-word answers; two asked ‘why’. Three learners answered all of them.”
“Learners did not understand.” “Seatwork, two rows checked: 7 of 16 learners wrote 1/2 + 1/3 = 2/5.”
“The teacher does not differentiate.” “All learners had the same worksheet. Two finished in four minutes and waited. Six had not started at minute 10.”

Some habits make the record more useful.

  1. Agree on the focus first. Know what the teacher is working on before you enter, and write mostly about that.
  2. Write times. A time stamp every few minutes shows how the lesson was used.
  3. Count. Count questions, answers, learners on task or learners who answered correctly. Counts are hard to dispute.
  4. Quote exactly. Write the teacher’s and learners’ words in quotation marks.
  5. Collect learner work. A photo or a quick tally of seatwork is often the best evidence.
  6. Note strengths with the same care. Specific praise teaches as much as specific correction.
  7. Leave quietly and thank the teacher. Do not interrupt the lesson or correct the teacher in front of learners.

Feedback from learners and parents needs the same care. A complaint is information to check, not a finding. Check it against what you observe and what learners’ work shows before you raise it with the teacher.

The post-observation conversation, step by step

The conversation after an observation is where supervision either helps or fails. DM 089 calls it a debriefing for walkthroughs and a post-observation conference for rated observations. The steps below are ours and fit both.

  1. Hold it soon and in private. Talk on the same day or the next day, in a place where others cannot hear. For a rated observation, follow DM 089’s three-day limit.
  2. Open with the purpose and the teacher’s view. Say whether the visit was rated. Ask the teacher how the lesson went compared with the plan.
  3. Share evidence, not verdicts. Read two or three items from your notes. Include a strength.
  4. Ask the teacher to interpret the evidence. “What do you make of that?” The teacher often names the problem before you do.
  5. Agree on one focus. One change that the teacher can try tomorrow is better than five suggestions.
  6. Plan the next step together. Use the GROW questions in the next section.
  7. Close with a summary and a date. Repeat the agreed action, set the follow-up visit, and ask what support the teacher needs. Record the visit.

A sample debrief script

The example is a walkthrough of about 12 minutes in a Grade 5 Mathematics class on adding dissimilar fractions. The names are invented.

School head: “Thank you for letting me visit this morning. This was a walkthrough, so there is no rating. I’d like to share what I saw and hear how you saw the lesson. How did it go compared with your plan?”

Teacher: “I think it went well. The class was quiet and they finished the seatwork.”

School head: “They did, and they started work quickly after your instructions. I wrote down a few things. You worked three examples on the board. You asked ‘Do you understand?’ twice, and the class answered ‘Yes’ both times. During seatwork I checked two rows. Seven of the 16 learners added the numerators and the denominators, for example 1/2 + 1/3 = 2/5. What do you make of that?”

Teacher: “So they said yes, but many did not really understand. Maybe they are shy to say no in front of the class.”

School head: “What would you like to know about your learners before they start the seatwork?”

Teacher: “Who still adds the denominators.”

School head: “How do you find that out now?”

Teacher: “Mostly I ask if they understand. I check the papers after class.”

School head: “What are some ways you could see every learner’s answer during the lesson?”

Teacher: “Thumbs up or down. Or one problem on scrap paper. We also have old slates.”

School head: “Which of those fits a class of 40?”

Teacher: “The slates. Everyone can raise them at the same time.”

School head: “What will you try, and when?”

Teacher: “Tomorrow, after the second example, I will give one problem on the slates and look at all the answers before I give the seatwork.”

School head: “How will we know it helped?”

Teacher: “Fewer learners adding the denominators in the seatwork.”

School head: “Let me summarize. Starting tomorrow, you will use the slates for one check after the second example and count how many still add the denominators. I will visit for about ten minutes on Thursday during the same part of the lesson. I will note today’s visit in my record. What do you need from me?”

Teacher: “Chalk for the slates.”

School head: “I will ask the property custodian today.”

In this script the school head did not rate, did not list every problem, and did not tell the teacher what to do. The evidence led the teacher to name the problem. If a teacher has no ideas, the school head may offer two or three options and let the teacher choose. That is still coaching.

Coaching teachers with the GROW model

Coaching is a structured conversation that helps a person improve performance by thinking through a goal and choosing actions. The GROW model, attributed to John Whitmore and colleagues and set out in Whitmore’s book Coaching for Performance, gives the conversation four stages. The debrief above followed them.

Stage Purpose Sample questions
Goal Agree what the teacher wants to achieve, in this lesson or this term “What would you like learners to be able to do by Friday?” “What would success look like in your class?”
Reality Describe the current situation from evidence “What happens now when learners get stuck?” “What did the seatwork show?”
Options List possible actions without judging them yet “What else could you try?” “What has worked for you with another class?” “May I add one idea?”
Way forward (some versions say “Will”) Choose one action, a time and a way to check it “What will you do first, and when?” “How will we both know it worked?”

A coaching cycle repeats this conversation over two to four visits on the same focus (our suggestion). The first visit sets the goal from evidence. Later visits check the agreed action, look at learner work, and either deepen the same focus or choose the next one. DO 016 item 6 describes the same purpose: instructional leaders help teachers “enhance their professional capacity in alignment with their identified needs, instructional goals, and learner outcomes”.

Listening during coaching

Coaching depends on listening more than talking. In a good coaching conversation, the teacher does most of the talking. Check that you understood by restating what the teacher said (“So the problem starts when the groups begin, not during your explanation?”). Ask open questions that begin with “what” or “how”, and avoid “why” questions that sound like blame.

Coaching and mentoring are different

Both support a teacher’s growth, and a school head does both. The difference is in who leads and what the talk is about.

Coaching Mentoring
Focus A specific practice or performance goal The teacher’s overall development and career
Who leads the talk The teacher, guided by the coach’s questions The mentor, who shares experience and advice
Main tool Questions and evidence from observation Advice, examples and the mentor’s own practice
Length A cycle of a few weeks on one focus Often a year or more
School example Three visits on checks for understanding in Grade 5 Mathematics A master teacher guiding a newly hired teacher through the first school year

DO 016 names both. It lists “instructional coaching” and “mentoring on Learning Design Principles” among the supports for new or newly assigned teachers.

Adjusting support to the teacher’s experience and performance

DO 016, s. 2026 says “Instructional leadership shall likewise remain flexible, providing differentiated and targeted support”. It adds that lesson plans may be more detailed when teachers handle new or complex content, and more concise as teachers gain proficiency. For experienced teachers, it says instructional leaders “may serve as partners in reflection”. The table applies this to supervision. It is our guide, not a DepEd rule.

Teacher’s situation What you talk about How directive you are How often you visit What you ask of the teacher
Newly hired or newly assigned to a learning area Basic routines, clear goals, checks for understanding; what to do tomorrow More directive: model, demonstrate, co-plan Often, especially in the first term Try one agreed practice at a time; reflect after lessons
Developing: meets expectations but unevenly The one practice that would raise learning most Mixed: ask first, then suggest Regular coaching cycles Sustain gains and check results in learner work
Strong and experienced Innovation, what’s next in the teacher’s career, helping others Least directive: reflection partner Less often, by agreement Lead a learning action cell session or peer coaching
Experienced but with persistent problems in learner results Clear expectations, specific evidence, agreed actions with dates Direct and specific, still respectful Short and frequent Meet agreed expectations; show progress in learner work

The last row needs care. Direct does not mean harsh. State the expectation, show the evidence, agree on the action and the date, and follow up as promised. Record each step in the PMCF.

Strong teachers are part of the supervision plan too. PPSSH indicator 4.6.1 asks school heads to identify the strengths and potentials of individuals and teams for leadership roles. A master teacher who leads peer coaching gives the school more supervision time and grows as a leader. At Career Stage 3, indicator 3.2.3 goes further: the school head engages master teachers, head teachers and department heads in giving technical assistance to teachers.

Technical assistance: do’s and don’ts

Technical assistance works when the teacher trusts the person giving it. The guide below groups common practice under four headings. It is ours.

Do Don’t
Climate Start on time, give the conversation your full attention, and keep it private. Expect the teacher to improve and say so. Don’t answer calls or check papers during the talk. Don’t bring a third person without the teacher’s agreement.
Listening Let the teacher speak first. Check your understanding by restating. Allow silence while the teacher thinks. Don’t interrupt, and don’t fill every pause with advice. Don’t ask questions meant to embarrass.
Focus Choose one issue when many come up. Tie every point to evidence and to learners. Don’t list everything you saw. Don’t give opinions as facts or jump to conclusions.
Ethics Keep what the teacher shares confidential. Admit what you do not know and find out. Follow through on what you promise. Don’t compare the teacher with colleagues. Don’t make the decision for the teacher when the teacher can make it.

Follow-up and records

Follow-up turns one conversation into a change in practice. Visit again on the agreed date and look at the agreed practice only. If it worked, say what the evidence shows and choose the next focus. If it did not, find out why with the teacher and adjust.

DM 089, s. 2025 sets where the records go. Observer-mentors record each walkthrough “in the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Form (PMCF) and the associated feedback to track progress over time”. The rater also records “Significant incidents observed and feedback provided” in the PMCF. These records give evidence for the performance review and for the teacher’s next IDP.

Records are the supervisor’s work, not the teacher’s. DO 016 says increased support “shall not result in additional documentation requirements, expanded templates, or unnecessary administrative burden”. It also forbids regions, divisions and schools from requiring lesson plan templates or forms beyond its simplified standards. Consistent with DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024, DO 016 tells school heads to make sure teachers are relieved of administrative tasks.

Use the records at the school level as well. At the end of each term, read across all PMCF entries and look for patterns. Many teachers may struggle with the same principle, such as checks for understanding. That principle then becomes a topic for the learning action cell and for the school’s professional development plan. That is the work of PPSSH strand 4.5.

The supervision cycle: what the school head does, in order

The steps below put the sections together for one school year. Each step names its document.

  1. Before and at the start of classes (PMES Phase I). Read teachers’ IDPs, self-assessment results, last year’s PMCF entries and learner data. With the raters, draft the IS Plan: each teacher’s focus, support, supervisor and schedule, including the agreed dates of rated observations. Document: IS Plan.
  2. First weeks of classes. Walk through every classroom to see routines and needs. Give each teacher a short, positive debrief. Document: PMCF.
  3. Throughout the year (PMES Phase II). Conduct walkthroughs and coaching cycles as planned. Debrief after every visit, and follow up on agreed actions. Documents: PMCF and the teacher’s own lesson plan, with no extra forms.
  4. Lesson-plan review. Lead qualitative reviews of lesson plans, as DO 016 item 37(b) requires, and use the findings for coaching. The method is in our post on DO 016, s. 2026.
  5. On the agreed dates. Conduct the rated full-period observations of the teachers you rate, and approve the ratings of the others, under the PMES protocol. Documents: COT and Observation Notes Form.
  6. End of each term. Review patterns across records, adjust the IS Plan, and set learning action cell topics. Documents: IS Plan, learning action cell plan.
  7. End of the school year (PMES Phases III and IV). Review progress with each teacher. Feed the findings into the next IDP and next year’s IS Plan. Documents: Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form (IPCRF) and IDP.

Common mistakes in instructional supervision

  1. Turning walkthroughs into ratings. DO 016 and DM 089 both describe walkthroughs as non-rated. A walkthrough that feels like a rating teaches teachers to perform for visitors.
  2. Checking documents instead of teaching. DO 016 says instructional leaders “shall not focus solely on checking the completeness of documents when reviewing lesson plans”.
  3. Giving too much feedback at once. A list of ten points produces no change. Choose one.
  4. Vague praise or vague criticism. “Nice lesson” and “Improve your questioning” give the teacher nothing to act on. Name the evidence.
  5. No follow-up. A debrief without a return visit tells the teacher that supervision is a formality.
  6. Visiting only weak teachers. Strong teachers also need feedback, and they can become peer coaches.
  7. Coaching the lesson that will be rated. DM 089 discourages technical assistance on the lesson plan for a rated observation. Coach before and after, not for the rating.
  8. Asking for extra paperwork. New forms or templates for supervision break DO 016’s rules on documentation.
  9. Using supervision to punish. Supervision builds practice. Matters of misconduct follow separate procedures, and mixing the two destroys trust.

Instructional supervision and the PPSSH

The table gives the Career Stage 1 indicators this post serves, quoted from the PPSSH, and what each looks like in supervision. The full standards are on the PPSSH guide, and Domain 3 is explained with DepEd data in PPSSH Domain 3: Teaching and Learning.

Strand Career Stage 1 indicator In instructional supervision
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 the Learning Design Principles, the RA 10533 approaches and the PPST well enough to see them in a lesson and coach them
3.3 Teacher performance feedback 3.3.1 Demonstrate understanding of the use of feedback obtained from learners, parents and other stakeholders to help teachers improve their performance. Using learner work, learner interviews and checked parent feedback as evidence in debriefs
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. Building the IS Plan from IDPs and observed gaps; turning patterns into learning action cell topics
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. Spotting teachers who can lead peer coaching and giving them that role

At Career Stage 2, the verbs change from “demonstrate” and “identify” to “provide”, “use” and “implement”. Indicator 3.2.2, for example, reads “Provide technical assistance to teachers on teaching standards and pedagogies within and across learning areas to improve their teaching practice.” DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025 says the NASH uses conceptual and situational critical-thinking questions aligned with the PPSSH.

Practice: how the NASH may test this

Expect situational items set in a classroom visit or a conversation after one. The stem gives what the school head saw or heard. The options differ in four ways: whether the response uses evidence, respects the non-rated purpose of a walkthrough, fits the teacher’s situation, and leads to a specific next step. The best answer usually combines all four. Weaker answers rate when they should coach, tell when they should ask, or add paperwork. For more items in this format, see the NASH practice questions with answers and the timed sets in the NASH Reviewer app.

Question 1

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

During a 12-minute walkthrough of a Grade 6 Science class, you see learners copying the steps of an experiment from the board. They then check that their result matches the one printed in the textbook. The teacher’s lesson plan says the lesson uses inquiry-based learning. What is the most appropriate response?

  • A. Mark the lesson as below standard on your observation form, and ask the teacher to submit a revised plan with a detailed inquiry section by the end of the week.
  • B. Record what learners did, then in a short debrief ask the teacher how learners could design part of the procedure next time, and agree on one change to try.
  • C. Tell the teacher after class that copying steps is not inquiry, and give her a sample inquiry lesson plan from the division to follow in her next Science lesson.
  • D. Note the good discipline and the neat board work in your record, and plan to look at inquiry during the teacher’s rated full-period observation later in the year.
Answer and explanation

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

  • A (0 points, Prestructural). It rates a non-rated walkthrough and adds documentation, which DO 016, s. 2026 says increased support must not do.
  • B (3 points, Relational). It records evidence, lets the teacher think through how learners could do more of the inquiry, and ends with one agreed change, which is the purpose of a walkthrough debrief.
  • C (2 points, Multistructural). The diagnosis is correct and the resource may help, but telling and prescribing leaves the teacher with someone else’s plan instead of her own reasoning.
  • D (1 point, Unistructural). It notices something true about the class but leaves the gap in pedagogy for a rating visit, where coaching on that lesson is discouraged.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.2.1 asks the school head to know pedagogies well enough to give technical assistance. Confirming a result already printed in the textbook leaves learners little of the inquiry to do. RA 10533 Section 5(e) asks for inquiry-based approaches, and DO 016 asks for “non-rated, formative walkthrough observations” with developmental feedback. The option that names the problem correctly loses points because it replaces the teacher’s thinking with a template.

Indicator 3.2.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of teaching standards and pedagogies within and across learning areas to provide technical assistance to teachers to improve their teaching practice.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026; Republic Act No. 10533, Section 5; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 2

Indicator 3.3.1, Teacher performance feedback. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

Several parents tell you that a Grade 3 teacher “does not explain the lessons well”. In a short talk during recess, two learners from the class say they are afraid to ask questions. You have not yet observed this teacher this school year. What is the most appropriate action?

  • A. Forward the parents’ comments to the teacher in a memo and ask her for a written explanation within three days, so that she has a chance to answer them.
  • B. Raise the parents’ comments at the next faculty meeting without naming the teacher, so that every teacher in the school can reflect on how they explain lessons.
  • C. Make a walkthrough to see if the comments are true, then tell the teacher which parents complained so she can talk with them and settle it herself.
  • D. Check the comments against your own walkthroughs and the learners’ written work, then share the confirmed points privately with the teacher and plan the support together.
Answer and explanation

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

  • A (0 points, Prestructural). It treats unverified feedback as a charge and starts a disciplinary exchange, which helps neither the teacher nor the learners.
  • B (1 point, Unistructural). It uses the feedback, but only in general terms, and the teacher concerned may never connect it to her class.
  • C (2 points, Multistructural). It gathers evidence, which is right, but naming the parents breaks confidence and leaves the teacher to resolve it without support.
  • D (3 points, Relational). It checks the feedback against classroom evidence, keeps the conversation private, and turns the confirmed points into a plan for improvement.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.3.1 asks the school head to understand how feedback from learners and parents can help teachers improve. Such feedback is information to check, not a finding. The relational answer combines the stakeholders’ feedback with observation and learner work, which is the evidence-based feedback that DO 016, s. 2026 puts at the center of instructional leadership.

Indicator 3.3.1: Demonstrate understanding of the use of feedback obtained from learners, parents and other stakeholders to help teachers improve their performance.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026.

Question 3

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

You are preparing the supervision plan for the term in a small elementary school. One teacher was hired two months ago and has had difficulty with reading lessons in Grade 1. A master teacher in Grade 6 has strong records from walkthroughs over the past two years. Your own time for classroom visits is limited. Which plan best fits the current policy and your school?

  • A. Give the new teacher structured guidance through coaching and co-planning, have the master teacher co-lead it as a peer coach, and act as the master teacher’s reflection partner.
  • B. Visit both teachers the same number of times and use the same checklist, so that your supervision plan treats every teacher in the school equally and fairly.
  • C. Require the new teacher to submit detailed lesson plans for checking every Monday, and leave the master teacher alone this year because she needs no further help.
  • D. Coach the new teacher yourself every week with the GROW model, and ask the master teacher to visit other schools to study good practice on her own.
Answer and explanation

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

  • A (3 points, Relational). It addresses the new teacher’s gap with the structured guidance DO 016 requires, builds on the master teacher’s strength, and makes better use of the school head’s limited time.
  • B (1 point, Unistructural). Equal treatment sounds fair, but it ignores the different needs that DO 016 tells instructional leaders to answer with “differentiated and targeted support”.
  • C (0 points, Prestructural). Weekly plan checking adds documentation that DO 016 says increased support must not create, and it ignores the master teacher’s growth.
  • D (2 points, Multistructural). Coaching the new teacher is right, but the plan does not use the master teacher’s strength inside the school and may not fit the school head’s time.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.5.1 asks the school head to understand professional development that enhances strengths and addresses performance gaps. DO 016, s. 2026 requires structured guidance for newly hired teachers and describes instructional leaders as partners in reflection for proficient teachers. The best plan does both at once and gives the master teacher a leadership role.

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

Sources: DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026; DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Frequently asked questions

What is instructional supervision in DepEd?

Instructional supervision in DepEd is the school head’s planned work of observing teaching, giving evidence-based feedback and coaching teachers to improve learning. RA 9155 makes the school head responsible for the “instructional supervision of the school”, and DO 016, s. 2026 defines instructional leadership as support through “evidence-based feedback and contextualized coaching”. Master teachers, head teachers and department heads share the work.

How long is a walkthrough observation in DepEd?

A walkthrough observation in DepEd typically lasts about 10 to 15 minutes. DO 016, s. 2026 encourages “frequent, non-rated, formative walkthrough observations” of that length, “or longer when schedules permit”. DM 089, s. 2025 describes the same short-period visits and asks for a brief debriefing after each.

Are walkthrough observations rated under the PMES?

No, walkthrough observations are not rated. Both DO 016, s. 2026 and DM 089, s. 2025 describe them as non-rated and formative. Ratings come from the full-period classroom observations under the PMES, which use the COT and their own protocol.

What is an Instructional Supervisory Plan in DepEd?

An Instructional Supervisory (IS) Plan is the rater’s plan for supporting each teacher during the school year under DM 089, s. 2025. It is based on teachers’ IDPs and records the schedule of full-period classroom observations and the professional development each teacher needs. It guides coaching and feedback throughout the year.

What is the difference between coaching and mentoring teachers?

Coaching helps a teacher improve a specific practice through questions and observation evidence, usually over a short cycle. Mentoring is a longer relationship in which an experienced colleague guides a teacher’s overall growth with advice and example. A school head uses coaching after observations and arranges mentoring for new teachers.

More on school leadership

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

Sources

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026; DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020 and the PPSSH; DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024; Republic Act Nos. 9155 and 10533; Blase and Blase (2000); DuFour (2002); Whitmore, Coaching for Performance.