Change management in schools means planning a change, helping teachers through it, and handling resistance. Below are Kurt Lewin’s three stages and force field analysis, planned change, the four change roles, William Bridges’s transition model and John Kotter’s eight steps. The worked example is a current Department of Education (DepEd) reform: the move from checking lesson plans to coaching under DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, with a step-by-step plan.

Leading change matters both to new school heads and to teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH), which replaced the National Qualifying Examination for School Heads (NQESH). In the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), adopted by DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, it falls under five strands. They are 1.2 and 1.3 in Domain 1, 2.6 in Domain 2, 4.6 in Domain 4, and 5.4 in Domain 5.

Key points

  • Change is the new rule or practice; transition is how people adjust to it. A DepEd order can change a practice on a set date. Teachers let go of the old way at their own pace, and the school head manages both.
  • Lewin’s three stages set the order of work. Unfreeze by showing why the old practice must end, change with support and practice, and refreeze by making the new practice routine.
  • Reduce the restraining forces before you add pressure. In the shift to coaching, the strongest restraints are usually the fear that coaching is a hidden rating and the lack of time for it. DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 answers both.
  • Every change has a sponsor, change agents, targets and advocates. The school head sponsors the change inside the school, Master Teachers and coordinators usually act as change agents, and the school head is also a target.
  • Resistance is normal and usually points to a real concern. Expect it, find it, understand it, answer the concern rather than the argument, and use more than one approach.

Change vs transition: what change management in schools means

Change management in schools is the planned work of moving a school from its current practice to a better one. It covers the change itself, such as a new policy or routine, and the people who must work in a new way. A school head who manages only the first part gets compliance in documents and little change in classrooms.

William Bridges, in Managing Transitions (1991), separates the two parts. Change is the external event: the new rule, schedule or system. Transition is the inner, psychological process that people go through as they accept it.

Change Transition
What it is An external event: a new policy, structure, system or routine The inner process of adjusting to the change
Speed Can happen quickly, on a set date Takes time, and differs from person to person
Predictability Can be planned and scheduled Results are harder to predict
School example DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 replaces the Daily Lesson Log (DLL) and Detailed Lesson Plan (DLP) formats with a simpler four-part framework A teacher who wrote DLLs for ten years must come to trust that a shorter plan is enough

Planned and unplanned change

Planned change is a deliberate decision to improve a school, carried out through a purposeful process with goals and a plan. Unplanned change happens without a deliberate, coordinated decision by the people affected: a typhoon closes classrooms, enrollment falls, or a key teacher transfers. The idea of planned change took shape in organization development writing, including The Planning of Change (1961) by Warren Bennis, Kenneth Benne and Robert Chin.

Most changes a school head leads are a mix of both. A new DepEd order is unplanned from the school’s side, because the school did not choose it. The school’s response must still be planned: how and when the school moves, who leads, and how progress is measured. Strand 2.6 of the PPSSH asks aspiring school heads to identify such emerging opportunities and challenges.

For the leadership style most often linked with leading change, see Transformational Leadership for DepEd School Heads.

The running example: from checking lesson plans to coaching

DepEd issued DepEd Order (DO) No. 016, s. 2026, Guidelines on Lesson Planning and Learning Design, on June 4, 2026. It repeals DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2016, because “some practices such as accomplishing the lesson plan forms became overly tedious and compliance-driven”. Teachers now plan with the ILAW framework: Intentions, Learning Experience, Assessing Learning, and Ways Forward.

The order changes the school head’s work as much as the teachers’ work. It defines instructional leadership as “the deliberate practice of supporting teaching and learning through evidence-based feedback and contextualized coaching”. It also says that instructional leaders “shall not focus solely on checking the completeness of documents when reviewing lesson plans”.

Common practice before Under DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 Paragraph
Fixed DLL and DLP formats The four ILAW elements; the sample guide in Annex B “shall not be interpreted as a required national template” 7, 11
Plans checked for complete parts Qualitative reviews whose findings are “the basis for coaching, technical assistance, and instructional support” 32, 37(b)
School-made templates and extra forms Schools “shall not require additional or expanded lesson plan templates, supplementary forms, or documentation” beyond the simplified standards 21
Classroom visits tied to rating Frequent, non-rated walkthroughs of about 10 to 15 minutes, with developmental feedback 33
Each teacher plans alone Collaborative planning, with Learning Action Cell (LAC) sessions as venues; shared lesson plans count as valid evidence of preparation 26 to 28, 37(a)
A rubric used to score The Annex A rubric as a self-check and coaching tool, “not as a compliance checklist or scoring tool for paperwork completion” 8, 9

The transitory provision let teachers use the DLL or DLP formats “until the end of the first term of School Year (SY) 2026-2027”. Under the three-term calendar of DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, Term 1 ended on September 15, 2026. Term 2 runs from September 16 to December 18, 2026, so every public school is now in full implementation.

The example school in this guide is a public elementary school with 30 teachers, two Master Teachers and six Grade Level Coordinators. Until September, teachers submitted DLLs every Monday, and the school head checked each one against a list of required parts. Teachers spent weekends writing, and the school head spent most of Monday reading.

Kurt Lewin’s three stages of change: unfreeze, change, refreeze

Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist, described change in a 1947 article, “Frontiers in Group Dynamics”. He saw a group’s usual behavior as a balance between forces. A lasting change, in his account, means unfreezing the present level, moving to a new level, and freezing behavior at the new level. Writers since then usually call the steps unfreeze, change and refreeze.

Stage What happens What the school head does in the example school
Unfreeze People see why the current practice must end and become ready to try another Shares the order’s reasons and the school’s own data: hours spent on logs, and how few teachers received feedback on their teaching
Change People learn and practice the new way with support Starts collaborative planning in LAC sessions, walkthroughs and coaching conferences
Refreeze The new practice becomes the normal way of working Builds coaching into the LAC calendar, the school plan and the induction of new teachers

Through all three stages, the school head manages the effect of the change on people. A DepEd order can require every teacher to use the ILAW framework. It cannot by itself make coaching useful to teachers; the three stages describe the work that does.

Force field analysis: driving and restraining forces

Force field analysis comes from Lewin’s field theory, collected in Field Theory in Social Science (1951). It treats the current state of a school as a balance. Driving forces push toward the change, and restraining forces hold the school where it is.

Lewin noted that the two ways of moving the balance have different side effects. Adding driving forces raises tension, because the restraining forces are still there. Reducing restraining forces moves the balance with less tension. For a school head, this means removing obstacles before adding pressure.

How to run a force field analysis with your team

  1. Write the current state and the desired state in one sentence each. For example: “Lesson plans are checked for completeness every Monday” and “Teachers plan with the ILAW framework and receive regular coaching.”
  2. With the instructional leaders and two or three teachers, list the driving and restraining forces.
  3. Rate each force from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong). Use evidence where you have it, such as a short anonymous survey.
  4. Choose the two or three strongest restraining forces that you can reduce, and plan one action for each.
  5. Add new driving forces only after the main restraints are reduced.
  6. Repeat the analysis at the end of the term, because the forces change as people change.
Driving forces Rating Restraining forces Rating
DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 requires the shift from the second term 5 Fear that walkthroughs and coaching will be used for rating 5
Teachers want less paperwork 4 No scheduled time for coaching conversations 4
Two Master Teachers already coach well 3 Belief that a thick lesson log proves diligence 3
Collaborative planning can share the planning load 3 Habit: everyone knows the old routine well 3
Some teachers lack confidence in writing learning intentions 2

In this example, policy already reduces the two strongest restraints. DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 calls walkthroughs non-rated and says they give feedback “without the pressure associated with formal performance evaluation”. DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026 keeps LAC sessions within the Instructional Block, and DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 names LAC sessions as venues for collaborative planning. A school head who announces both points in writing removes both restraints at little cost.

Current state, desired state, gaps and interventions

Force field analysis fits inside four questions that a school head can ask about any change:

  1. Current state: what are the school’s present conditions and practices?
  2. Desired state: where should the school be, and by when?
  3. Gaps: what behavioral, structural and technological changes lie between the two?
  4. Interventions: which actions close each gap and help people through the transition?

In the example school, the behavioral gap is the move from checking to coaching. The structural gap is time, because coaching needs a place in the schedule. The technological gap is small: a school archive of lesson plans, digital or printed, as paragraph 37(e) of the order provides. The guide to organizational diagnosis models covers other ways to diagnose a school.

The five phases of planned change

A planned change moves through five phases. This cycle is a working framework that matches Lewin’s stages, not the model of a single author. The step-by-step plan later in this guide applies each phase to the example school.

Phase What it means Main document
1. Present state (baseline) Diagnose where the school is now Baseline sheet, force field chart
2. Preparation Build readiness and a plan; name the people who will lead Change plan, communication plan
3. Implementation (transition state) Carry out the change with support LAC session notes, coaching notes
4. Monitoring and improvement Check progress against the baseline and adjust Monitoring sheet, conference notes
5. Sustaining (desired state) Make the new practice routine Updated school plan, LAC calendar

Whatever the model, a planned change needs four things. They are direction (goals and targets), measures (a baseline and a way to track progress), people in defined roles, and a process from diagnosis to evaluation. Strand 1.2 of the PPSSH asks aspiring school heads to understand “the phases of development and implementation of school plans”. The phases follow the same logic as the School Improvement Plan: describe the current state, set targets, act, and check.

The four roles in change: sponsor, change agent, target and advocate

Daryl Conner, in Managing at the Speed of Change (1992), named four roles that people play in any change. One person can hold more than one role, and a role can belong to a group.

Role Definition In the example school
Sponsor The person or group with the authority to legitimize the change The school head inside the school; the Schools Division Office (SDO) and DepEd above it
Change agent The person or group responsible for carrying out the change The two Master Teachers and the Grade Level Coordinators, who coach and lead LAC planning
Target The person or group who must actually change All teachers, and the school head, who must move from checker to coach
Advocate The person or group who wants the change but lacks the authority to legitimize it A teacher who has asked for collaborative planning for years

Three mistakes are common. A school head who announces a change and then leaves it to others is a weak sponsor. Teachers see that absence as a sign that the change does not matter. An advocate who acts without a sponsor gets blamed for a change no one authorized. A school head who forgets being a target asks teachers to change while keeping old habits, such as reading plans for missing parts.

Strand 4.6 asks aspiring school heads to identify the “strengths, capabilities and potentials” of people for leadership roles. Choosing change agents is that skill in practice. A good change agent is respected by peers, skilled in the new practice and willing to learn in front of colleagues.

Managing transitions: William Bridges’s three phases

Bridges described transition in three phases: endings, the neutral zone, and new beginnings. People move through them at different speeds, so one school can have teachers in all three phases at once.

Phase What people experience What the school head does
Endings Loss of a familiar routine, of skills that mattered, and of a sense of competence Names what is ending and what is not; acknowledges the losses
The neutral zone The old way is gone and the new way does not feel natural yet; confusion, worry, lower output Sets short-term goals, gives frequent information and close support, and protects the change team from overload
New beginnings People understand the new way, try it and start to own it Shows results, recognizes early adopters, and makes the practice routine

How to help teachers let go of the old way

Bridges’s advice on endings can be turned into five actions. Each one fits the shift away from checking DLLs.

  1. Mark the ending clearly. Say in a faculty meeting what stops: the weekly completeness check and the required format. Say also what continues: preparation, the four ILAW elements and professional accountability.
  2. Treat the past with respect. The old logs showed the teachers’ care for preparation. The order itself says the earlier issuances “played an important role in establishing a system for lesson planning”.
  3. Acknowledge the losses openly. A teacher who was praised for complete logs loses a way of proving her diligence. Say so, and do not be surprised by strong reactions.
  4. Compensate for the losses. Offer new ways to show good work: a shared lesson plan, a coaching note, or an example that colleagues study in a LAC session.
  5. Let people take a piece of the old way with them. The order lets experienced teachers adapt templates or develop personalized formats within its requirements. A teacher may keep a familiar layout if the four ILAW elements are evident.

Teachers let go faster when they trust the school head’s intentions. The Johari Window of Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham (1955) calls the part of a person known both to the self and to others the open area. A school head enlarges it by disclosing intentions (“I will use walkthroughs to help you plan, not to rate you”) and by asking for feedback and acting on it. The Johari Window guide shows how to map your own.

John Kotter’s eight steps for leading change

John Kotter described eight steps in “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail”, in the March-April 1995 Harvard Business Review. He drew them from more than 100 companies he had watched try to transform themselves. He expanded them in his 1996 book Leading Change.

Kotter’s step (1995 article) What it looks like in a school
1. Establishing a sense of urgency Show the cost of the old way with the school’s own data
2. Forming a powerful guiding coalition A change team of the school head, respected Master Teachers and coordinators
3. Creating a vision One sentence on what lesson planning and coaching will look like
4. Communicating the vision Repeat it in meetings, LAC sessions and walkthrough feedback, and act on it
5. Empowering others to act on the vision Remove obstacles, such as extra forms and a schedule with no time for coaching
6. Planning for and creating short-term wins Plan visible early results, such as one grade level’s shared plans
7. Consolidating improvements and producing still more change Use the early results to extend coaching to every grade level
8. Institutionalizing new approaches Build the practice into school plans, induction and the LAC calendar

Kotter’s steps describe the same movement as Lewin’s stages in more detail. Steps 1 to 4 unfreeze, steps 5 to 7 carry out the change, and step 8 refreezes. Kotter also warned against declaring victory too soon. In a school, that means stopping support after the first good term.

Danger signals during change

Many changes slow down or stop in the neutral zone. Watch for these five warning signs.

Danger signal What it can look like What to do
The staff splits into two groups Senior teachers want the old checks back, while some younger teachers stop writing plans at all Restate what has ended and what remains required; bring both groups into the same LAC planning work
A growing belief that the old way was better “At least we knew what was expected” Make expectations clear with the Annex A rubric, and share early results
Outside criticism of the school A visitor asks to see “the lesson plans” in the old format Prepare a short written explanation of the order for parents and visitors
Frustration and confusion from missing information Rumors in group chats about how walkthroughs will be used Give the same written answer to everyone, early and more than once
Burnout of the change team The Master Teachers coach, lead LAC sessions and run other programs at the same time Reduce their other tasks, spread the work, and protect their rest

DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026 protects that rest. It grants teachers a two-day wellness break within the End-of-Term Block, with no instructional, administrative or extracurricular duties except in emergencies or when the service requires it.

Small wins: how to sustain a change (refreezing)

Karl Weick argued in “Small Wins” (American Psychologist, 1984) that very large problems overwhelm people. A series of small, concrete, completed results attracts allies and discourages opponents, and each success makes the next one easier. A change in a school holds when teachers see such results early.

Small wins in the example school could include these:

  • One grade level’s teachers plan a week of lessons together in a LAC session and all use the shared plan. The order accepts a shared plan as evidence of preparation when every teacher understands it and can deliver it.
  • A teacher reports that a walkthrough conference helped her fix a lesson the next day.
  • Hours spent on lesson plan paperwork fall, measured against the baseline.

To refreeze the change, make the goal visible by using the same one-sentence vision in meetings, the LAC plan and the school plan. Start coaching with volunteers whose results others will see, and thank people by name for specific actions. Then build the practice into systems: the LAC calendar for Term 3 and the next school year, the induction of new teachers, and the school’s lesson plan archive. The order already requires structured guidance in lesson planning for newly hired teachers.

Resistance to change among teachers: five principles

Teachers resist a change for reasons that make sense to them. In the shift to coaching, common reasons are fear of a hidden rating, worry about workload, and the loss of a familiar way to prove good work. Others are doubt after earlier reforms that did not last, and low confidence in the new skills.

Principle What it means In the example school
1. Expect it Resistance is natural, even to a change that reduces paperwork Plan time for questions and doubts in the first month
2. Find it Resistance is often silent: compliance in documents only, or absence from LAC sessions Ask in one-on-one talks and short anonymous surveys
3. Understand it People resist for different reasons Separate fear of rating, workload worries and skill gaps
4. Address concerns, not arguments Debating whether the order is right does not help; the concern behind the argument does Answer the fear of rating with the order’s non-rated walkthroughs and a written commitment
5. Manage it in more than one way No single approach works for everyone Coaching for skill gaps, clear information for fears, scheduled time for workload

A teacher who keeps asking “What if the division asks for our DLLs?” is not opposing the change. He is asking for protection. Give him a written statement of what the school keeps as evidence of preparation. The order supports it: Regional Offices, SDOs and schools “shall not require additional or expanded lesson plan templates, supplementary forms, or documentation” beyond the simplified standards.

How to communicate change to teachers and parents

Three elements make up the people side of any change. Communication is a two-way exchange, and it reduces confusion. Participation involves the people affected in planning and doing the work, and it builds commitment. Education gives people the knowledge and skills they need, and it reduces the fear of failure.

Audience What they need to know Channel Who When
Instructional leaders Their roles, the coaching cycle, how to use the Annex A rubric Planning meeting, coaching practice School head Before teachers are told
Teachers What ends, what stays, how coaching and walkthroughs work, what is non-rated Faculty conference, one-page summary, LAC sessions School head, with the Master Teachers Before and during the first weeks
Parents Why teachers’ preparation looks different and how it helps learning Parent-Teacher Conference, parent-teacher association meetings School head and class advisers At the Parent-Teacher Conference in the End-of-Term Block
SDO Progress and the technical assistance the school needs Reports and visits School head Each term

Say why before what, and say what is not changing. Give the same message in writing to everyone, repeat it, and answer questions in writing for everyone. Strand 5.4 asks for competent skills “in speaking and writing, as well as in utilizing communication platforms”. A school group chat is one such platform. Use it to post the official summary and answers, and hold discussions face to face, where people can ask follow-up questions at once.

For a full school year of messages built around the SIP, with a sample plan, see SIP Communication Plan: Structure, Style and a Sample.

A step-by-step change plan for DO 016, s. 2026

The plan follows the five phases of planned change. It fits a school that is moving now, in Term 2 of SY 2026-2027, and it names the document each step produces.

Phase 1: Diagnose the present state

  1. Read the order with your instructional leaders. List what DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 asks of the school head (paragraphs 37 and 41) and what it does not allow (paragraphs 10, 21 and 29). Document: a one-page summary.
  2. Set a baseline. In a short anonymous survey, ask teachers how many hours a week they spend on lesson plan paperwork. Ask also when they last received feedback on a lesson, and count last term’s classroom visits. Document: a baseline sheet.
  3. Run a force field analysis with the instructional leaders and two or three teachers, as shown above. Document: a force field chart.

Phase 2: Prepare and unfreeze

  1. Name the roles. Confirm yourself as sponsor, choose the change agents, and invite advocates onto the change team. Document: a change team list with tasks.
  2. Remove the strongest restraints first. State in writing that walkthroughs are non-rated and that no school-made template or extra form is required. Schedule collaborative planning and coaching in LAC sessions within the Instructional Block. Document: a written notice to teachers and the LAC schedule.
  3. Hold a faculty conference to mark the ending. Explain why, what ends, what stays and how support will work. Answer questions, then post a one-page summary. Document: conference notes and the summary.

Phase 3: Implement the change

  1. Start coaching with volunteers. All teachers use the ILAW framework from the start of Term 2, but coaching cycles begin with one grade level whose teachers volunteered. Document: a coaching calendar.
  2. Run short, non-rated walkthroughs. Visit for about 10 to 15 minutes and give brief feedback within a day or two. Focus on the four areas in paragraph 32. They are the alignment and coherence of the lesson components, the use of the Learning Design Principles, the use of evidence of learning, and the teacher’s beliefs and developing strengths. Document: walkthrough notes kept by the observer.
  3. Review a sample of plans qualitatively. Use the Annex A rubric to find patterns, such as weak learning intentions, and turn them into LAC topics and coaching goals. Document: review notes.

Phase 4: Monitor and adjust

  1. Check progress every month against the baseline. Track paperwork hours, walkthroughs, coaching conversations, teachers’ feedback and evidence of learning, and watch for the danger signals. Document: a monitoring sheet.
  2. Hold a participatory conference. Paragraph 37(d) asks school heads to organize conferences where teachers and instructional leaders analyze the impact of lesson planning on learner outcomes. The Term 2 End-of-Term Block, December 7 to 18, 2026, is a good time. Document: conference notes with agreed adjustments.

Phase 5: Sustain and refreeze

  1. Share small wins and build them into systems. Report results to teachers and the SDO. Set the LAC and coaching calendar for Term 3, which runs from January 4 to April 8, 2027. Add the practice to next year’s school plan and to the induction of new teachers. Document: the updated school plan and LAC calendar.

Who does what in this change

Person Role in the change Main tasks Documents
School head Sponsor inside the school; also a target Sets direction, removes obstacles, leads qualitative reviews, coaches, communicates and monitors Summary of the order, baseline, force field chart, change plan, monitoring sheet
Master Teachers and Grade Level Coordinators Change agents Lead LAC planning, conduct walkthroughs and coach LAC session notes, walkthrough and coaching notes
Teachers Targets; some are also advocates Plan with the ILAW framework, self-check with the rubric, plan together and reflect Lesson plans, kept in the school archive
SDO, through its Curriculum Implementation Division Sponsor above the school Orients school personnel on coaching and gives technical assistance Orientation and technical assistance records

The order also asks school heads to relieve teachers of administrative tasks so they have time to prepare lessons. It cites DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024 and DepEd Order No. 005, s. 2024 for this. LAC sessions remain governed by DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016. The guide to DepEd lesson planning under DO 016, s. 2026 covers the ILAW framework itself.

PPSSH strands and Career Stage 1 indicators for leading change

Strand Career Stage 1 indicator Where it shows in leading change
1.2 School planning and implementation 1.2.1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the phases of development and implementation of school plans aligned with institutional goals and policies. The five phases of planned change: baseline, preparation, implementation, monitoring and sustaining
1.3 Policy implementation and review 1.3.1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of policy implementation and review to ensure that school operations are consistent with national and local laws, regulations and issuances. Implementing the order as written, including what it does not allow, and reviewing how it works in the school
2.6 Emerging opportunities and challenges 2.6.1 Identify emerging opportunities and challenges in addressing the needs of learners, school personnel and other stakeholders. Recognizing planned and unplanned changes and their effects on people
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 change agents and giving advocates a role
5.4 Communication 5.4.1 Demonstrate competent skills in speaking and writing, as well as in utilizing communication platforms, in communicating with teachers, learners, parents and other stakeholders. The faculty conference, the written summary and the communication plan

Career Stage 1 indicators ask aspiring school heads to know, understand and identify. The domain guides explain each domain in full: Domain 1, Leading Strategically, Domain 2, Managing School Operations, Domain 4, Developing Self and Others and Domain 5, Building Connections. The app’s PPSSH guide lists every indicator.

Practice: how the NASH may test this

DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025 says the NASH covers conceptual and situational critical thinking questions aligned with the PPSSH. It uses the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy as its framework. On change, expect stems that describe a school in the middle of a reform and ask for the best next action. The best answer usually reduces a real obstacle, follows current policy, and attends to people. The three items below are original practice items, not actual or recalled NASH items.

Question 1

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

You are the new school head of a public elementary school that is moving from checking lesson plans to coaching under DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026. A Master Teacher has asked twice that Learning Action Cell (LAC) sessions be used for collaborative lesson planning. Her two LAC sessions on the ILAW framework were the best attended of the term, but she has no authority over the LAC schedule. What is the most appropriate action?

  • A. Thank her for the suggestion and ask her to wait for the division’s orientation on coaching, since changes in the use of LAC sessions should first come from the division office.
  • B. Recognize her as an advocate of the change, name her to the change team with your backing, and agree with her on a schedule of LAC planning sessions that she will lead.
  • C. Let her reorganize the LAC sessions on her own as she sees fit, since she understands the ILAW framework better than most teachers and her colleagues respect her work.
  • D. Name her LAC facilitator for the term and announce it at the faculty meeting, then review each of her sessions with the checklist the school used to check lesson plans.
Answer and explanation

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

  • A (0 points, Prestructural). The order already directs school heads to provide regular collaborative planning and names LAC sessions as venues for it. Waiting misreads the policy and leaves a proven strength unused.
  • B (3 points, Relational). This option reads her role correctly: she wants the change but lacks authority. It adds the sponsorship she lacks and turns her strength into a change-agent role with an agreed plan.
  • C (1 point, Unistructural). It sees her strength, but without the school head’s sponsorship she has no authority. Teachers may treat the change as one teacher’s project.
  • D (2 points, Multistructural). It gives her a role and announces it, but supervising her with a completeness checklist repeats the practice the order is moving away from.

Why. Indicator 4.6.1 asks aspiring school heads to identify the strengths of individuals for leadership roles. In Daryl Conner’s terms, this teacher is an advocate: she wants the change but cannot legitimize it. The school head, as sponsor, supplies the authority, and the advocate becomes a change agent. DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 asks school heads to “strategically position instructional leaders to support teachers”, which this option does.

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

Sources: DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, paragraphs 27 and 37(a); Daryl Conner, Managing at the Speed of Change (1992).

Question 2

Indicator 1.3.1, Policy implementation and review. Career Stage 1, Conceptual, Difficult.

A school head runs a force field analysis on the school’s shift from checking lesson plans to coaching under DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026. The driving forces are the order, teachers’ wish for less paperwork, and two Master Teachers who coach well. The strongest restraining forces are teachers’ fear that walkthroughs will be rated and the lack of scheduled time for coaching. Which plan best applies force field analysis to the implementation of the policy?

  • A. Announce weekly unscheduled classroom visits by the school head, so that teachers see the new policy being enforced and understand that lesson preparation still matters.
  • B. Ask the two Master Teachers to coach more teachers each week, since adding strength to the driving forces is the fastest way to move the school to the desired state.
  • C. Record every driving and restraining force in the school plan, rate each one, and review the full list with the planning team at the end of the school year.
  • D. State in writing that walkthroughs are non-rated as the order provides, schedule coaching time within LAC sessions, and keep the Master Teachers leading the coaching cycle.
Answer and explanation

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

  • A (0 points, Prestructural). Unannounced visits framed as enforcement feed the strongest restraining force, the fear of rating. They also go against the order’s non-rated, developmental walkthroughs.
  • B (1 point, Unistructural). It works on one side of the field only. Adding pressure while fear and lack of time remain raises tension and can exhaust the Master Teachers.
  • C (2 points, Multistructural). It carries out the analysis correctly, listing and rating the forces, but it stops before any action. The forces stay as they are for a whole year.
  • D (3 points, Relational). It reduces the two strongest restraining forces with provisions of current policy and keeps the driving forces in place. That is the order of work that force field analysis recommends.

Why. Indicator 1.3.1 asks for knowledge of policy implementation. Here, good implementation means using what the policy itself provides. Lewin observed that reducing restraining forces moves the balance with less tension than adding driving forces. DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 makes walkthroughs non-rated, and DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026 keeps LAC sessions within the Instructional Block. The school head can therefore remove both restraints without new resources.

Indicator 1.3.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of policy implementation and review to ensure that school operations are consistent with national and local laws, regulations and issuances.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, paragraphs 27 and 33; DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, paragraph 22; Kurt Lewin, “Frontiers in Group Dynamics” (1947).

Question 3

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

Six weeks into the second term of SY 2026-2027, your faculty is split. Several senior teachers say the old weekly check of Daily Lesson Logs was better because “at least we knew what was expected”. Some younger teachers now bring no written plan at all. Both groups complain in the school group chat that no one has explained the new rules. What should you do first?

  • A. Hold a faculty conference that states what has ended, what the ILAW framework still requires, and how coaching will work, then answer questions and post a one-page summary in the group chat.
  • B. Issue a written notice that quotes DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 in full and directs all teachers to comply with the new lesson planning guidelines starting next week.
  • C. Allow the senior teachers to keep submitting weekly logs for checking and the younger teachers to plan as they wish, so that each group can work in the way it prefers.
  • D. Meet the senior teachers and the younger teachers separately to hear their concerns, and promise a clear school policy on lesson plans after the end of the term.
Answer and explanation

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

  • A (3 points, Relational). It answers both danger signals in the stem, a split faculty and missing information, in one step. It marks the ending, restates what remains required, explains the support, and uses both speech and a written platform.
  • B (1 point, Unistructural). The policy content is correct, but a one-way notice does not answer the concerns behind the complaints. It also does not show teachers how the change will work.
  • C (0 points, Prestructural). The order bars schools from requiring extra templates or forms, and its lesson plan components apply to new and experienced teachers alike. This option breaks both rules and deepens the split.
  • D (2 points, Multistructural). Listening is right, but separate meetings and a delayed answer keep the two groups apart and leave the confusion in place for the rest of the term.

Why. Indicator 5.4.1 asks for competent skills in speaking and writing and in using communication platforms. The stem shows two danger signals that appear in the neutral zone, the middle phase of William Bridges’s model: a split staff, and frustration from missing information. The best response gives everyone the same message, in person and in writing. It also follows the order’s rules on what a lesson plan must contain and what schools may not require.

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

Sources: DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, paragraphs 4(h), 11, 21 and 43; William Bridges, Managing Transitions (1991).

More items are in the 50 NASH practice questions with answers and the app’s timed practice sets.

Frequently asked questions

What is change management in schools?

Change management in schools is the planned work of moving a school from its current practice to a better one while helping teachers, learners and parents adjust. It combines a plan for the change, such as Lewin’s stages or Kotter’s steps, with care for the transition people go through.

What are Kurt Lewin’s three stages of change?

Lewin’s three stages are unfreeze, change and refreeze. Unfreezing makes people ready to let go of the current practice, changing is learning the new practice with support, and refreezing makes the new practice routine.

What is the difference between change and transition?

Change is the external event, such as a new DepEd order, and transition is the inner process people go through to accept it. William Bridges, who drew the distinction, describes transition in three phases: endings, the neutral zone, and new beginnings. A school head can set the date of a change but must manage the transition person by person.

How should a school head handle teachers’ resistance to change?

A school head should treat resistance as normal and look for the concern behind it. The five principles are: expect it, find it, understand it, address concerns rather than arguments, and manage it in more than one way. In the shift to coaching, the most common concern is fear of being rated, and the answer is the order’s non-rated walkthroughs, stated in writing.

What does DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 change for school heads?

DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 moves the school head’s role from checking lesson plans for completeness to leading qualitative reviews, non-rated walkthroughs and coaching. It replaces the DLL and DLP formats with the ILAW framework, bars schools from requiring extra templates, and names LAC sessions as venues for collaborative planning. It applies in full from the second term of SY 2026-2027.

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 Orders No. 016 and No. 009, s. 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020 and the PPSSH; DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025; Lewin (1947, 1951); Conner (1992); Bridges (1991); Kotter (1995, 1996); Weick (1984).