NASH Practice Test Set B: 50 PPSSH Items With Answer Keys

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). Handing out the text is a start, but reading a statement does not show parents or teachers why these two programs follow from it.
• B (3 points, Relational). This communicates the vision as the reason for the programs and connects it to the plan and the council, which is how shared understanding and alignment are built.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). Attributing the programs to the division and promising classrooms avoids the question and leaves the school’s direction unexplained.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Presenting and posting the vision spreads the words, but treating the programs as separate agenda items leaves their connection to the vision unexplained.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 1.1.2 asks the school head to communicate the DepEd vision, mission and core values to the wider school community so that policies and programs are understood as aligned with them. The data reports show why the explanation is needed: enrollment has fallen since SY 2022-23 in most divisions, returning learners re-enter mainly at Grade 1 and Grade 7, and a school head who starts bridging and reading programs is responding to that evidence. The option that posts the vision gets the communication right but fails to connect it to the two programs, which is the element the indicator requires. Copying the text alone is one step; deferring to the division communicates nothing.

Indicator 1.1.2: Communicate the DepEd vision, mission and core values to the wider school community to ensure shared understanding and alignment of school policies, programs, projects and activities.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This treats the incident as a policy review: it corrects the practice against the national policy, fixes the case in hand and writes the corrected procedure down.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Admitting the learner fixes one case, but a verbal reminder leaves a years-old practice undocumented and liable to return.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). Refusing enrollment on the grading calendar contradicts the policy that no learner is turned away, and ALS is not a substitute for a seat the learner is entitled to.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). A written record for the supervisor is useful, but it hands the school’s own policy review to the district and leaves the learner waiting.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 1.3.2 asks the school head to undertake policy implementation and review so that school operations stay consistent with national issuances. DepEd’s enrollment policy admits learners throughout the year and directs schools to bridge returning learners, and the data show the stakes: Balik-Aral learners are 1.19 percent of Grade 7 nationally, the highest share of any secondary grade, so a school that tags few of them is probably turning them away rather than lacking them. The option that enrolls the learner and reminds the registrar gets the case right but leaves the practice unreviewed and unwritten. Documenting the practice for the supervisor is a single step; refusing enrollment is contrary to policy.

Indicator 1.3.2: Undertake policy implementation and review in the school to ensure that operations are consistent with national and local laws, regulations and issuances.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). The Open High School Program is a school-based program within the formal system, not the Alternative Learning System.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). The program is not an acceleration or placement scheme; it delivers the same grades to learners who cannot attend daily.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Modules are part of it, but the program keeps scheduled contact with a teacher and is not self-study checked once a quarter.
• D (3 points, Relational). This names the learners the program serves, how it is delivered and that it keeps the regular curriculum and assessment, which is what understanding its implementation requires.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.5.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand how programs that support learners are implemented in the school. The Open High School Program is DepEd’s school-based alternative delivery mode for junior high learners who cannot attend daily classes; it keeps the regular curriculum and assessment while delivering them through modules and scheduled teacher contact. The learner data for SY 2023-24 show how small it is, 13,060 learners in 586 public schools, so a school head who understands its design can judge whether to offer it. The option describing home modules gets the materials right but drops the scheduled contact; the placement and ALS descriptions confuse it with other programs.

Indicator 1.5.1: Display understanding of the implementation of programs in the school that support the development of learners.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This uses the learners’ evidence to change a decision, checks it against the school’s records and keeps the learners in the room where the plan is revised.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Declaring the plan unchangeable and decisions reserved to adults is the opposite of using learner voice in decision-making.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Repairs are a response, but they treat the survey as a maintenance request rather than as evidence for the plan.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Adding the repairs acknowledges the survey, but keeping the court first means the learners’ evidence did not inform the priority it speaks to.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 1.6.2 asks the school head to utilize learner voice, including learners’ views and feelings, to inform policy and decision-making for school improvement. The WASH data give the scale of the problem the survey describes: public schools average about 62 girls per functional female toilet bowl, and the sanitation report links this to absence among adolescent girls. The option that adds repairs below the covered court hears the learners but does not let their evidence change the priority, which is the element the indicator requires. Ordering repairs is a single step; refusing to revisit the plan dismisses the voice altogether.

Indicator 1.6.2: Utilize learner voice, such as feelings, views and/ or opinions to inform policy development and decision-making towards school improvement.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Dismissing the projection and the feeder data ignores the evidence that the school’s crowding is about to ease.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Attaching the evidence is right, but leaving the request unchanged and passing the decision to the division drops the school’s own planning step.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Confirming counts is sensible, but holding the plan for a projection the division may never issue stalls the team’s work.
• D (3 points, Relational). This brings the evidence to the team, revises the targets with them and makes the request follow the revised targets, which is developing a plan with the planning team.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 1.2.2 asks the school head to develop and implement school plans with the planning team on the basis of evidence. The enrollment series shows kindergarten intakes falling for three years and the cohort projection in this series puts Grade 7 about 24 percent smaller by SY 2031-32, because this year’s small Grade 1 class reaches it then. A classroom request sized to today’s Grade 7 would be built for learners who will not arrive. The option that attaches the evidence but keeps the request gets the documentation right and the decision wrong. Waiting for the division is a single step; ignoring the projection abandons the planning evidence altogether.

Indicator 1.2.2: Develop and implement with the planning team school plans aligned with institutional goals and policies.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). Asking for the neighbor’s results is one useful step, but it drops the national evidence and the caveat the teacher needs to see.
• B (3 points, Relational). This uses the finding to question the premise, respects its stated limits and turns the decision into a comparison of the two schools’ own evidence.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Reading the finding as proof that private schools are worse overstates it; the author’s caveat about the sample is part of the finding.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). Piloting a scheme proposed on reputation, while dismissing evidence as inapplicable, is not research-informed innovation.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 1.4.2 asks the school head to utilize research findings from reliable sources in facilitating data-driven innovation, which includes using a finding’s limits as well as its headline. The analysis of the SY 2023-24 Grade 6 assessment finds private schools averaging 53.2 against 61.0 for public schools and about 6.8 points lower within the same division, with no gap in English, while warning that the 814 private schools tested were not a representative sample. The option that rejects the proposal outright gets the direction right but turns an association into a verdict. Requesting the neighbor’s results is a single step; the pilot ignores the evidence.

Indicator 1.4.2: Utilize relevant research findings from reliable sources in facilitating data-driven and evidence-based innovations to improve school performance.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). The finding is that the results do rise and fall together, which is the opposite of treating them as unrelated.
• B (3 points, Relational). This reads persistence as a monitoring signal and places the monitoring where it can change the outcome, in the years between the two assessments.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Repeating the Grade 3 test confirms what is already known; monitoring is meant to follow the cohort, not re-measure the starting point.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Focusing on Grade 6 treats the warning as a Grade 6 problem when the gap was visible three years earlier.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.7.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand monitoring and evaluation processes and tools that promote learner achievement. The persistence analysis in this series finds a correlation of 0.62 between a school’s ELLNA and Grade 6 NAT means and that 14.1 percent of schools sit in the bottom quarter on both, against 6.25 percent if the results were unrelated. The implication is that a Grade 3 result is a warning for the same school, and that monitoring the cohort through Grades 4 and 5 is where evaluation can still change the outcome. Repeating the test re-measures rather than monitors; focusing on Grade 6 arrives late; denying the link ignores the finding.

Indicator 1.7.1: Display knowledge and understanding of monitoring and evaluation processes and tools to promote learner achievement.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). A list of failing learners is one input, but it is not a plan and it waits on an assessment that will come after the cohort has moved on.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). An end-of-year test is monitoring of a kind, but once a year is too late to act, and it ignores the quarterly data already in the system.
• C (3 points, Relational). This uses the tools the school already has, points them at the cohort where the pattern will repeat and builds in a review cycle, which is utilizing monitoring to promote achievement.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). Attributing results to the community and passing the plan to the district uses no monitoring tool at all.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 1.7.2 asks the school head to utilize available monitoring and evaluation processes and tools to promote learner achievement. The persistence finding, that schools low on ELLNA tend to be low on the Grade 6 NAT three years later, means the cohort between the two assessments is where monitoring matters, and the learner information system already holds quarterly grades that can be compared across grades. The option proposing an annual school-made test gets the idea of measurement but loses the quarterly cycle and the existing data. Listing failing learners is a single step; blaming the community and deferring to the supervisor abandons the task.

Indicator 1.7.2: Utilize available monitoring and evaluation processes and tools to promote learner achievement.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Delaying a national policy until a cohort graduates is outside the school head’s authority and ignores its transition rules.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Informing learners is one step of implementation, not the role.
• C (3 points, Relational). This describes implementation as study, decision within the policy’s limits, communication and feedback, which is the school head’s part in it.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Applying the division’s memorandum is part of it, but the policy leaves the choice of offerings and electives to schools.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.3.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand policy implementation and review so that school operations stay consistent with national issuances. The strengthened senior high school program, implemented from SY 2025-26, reclassified strands and shifted some learners between tracks, which the SY 2025-26 enrollment file records; schools had to decide what to offer within the new structure. The option that waits for the division memorandum gets the chain of issuances right but misses that implementation includes decisions the school makes. Announcing strands to learners is one step; refusing to change until a cohort graduates misreads the school head’s authority.

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. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). A projection with a stated method is reliable evidence of direction; discarding it loses the warning it carries.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Attaching the method note is good practice, but national ratios are not a school’s targets, whatever their date.
• C (3 points, Relational). This identifies what the finding can support, a direction, and what it cannot, a school target, and uses the school’s own data for the latter.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Checking endorsement is one step; it does not address what the projection can and cannot say for the school.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to identify relevant research findings from reliable sources, which includes judging what a finding can be used for. The projection in this series is built from national cohort flows and three kindergarten scenarios and is explicit that it describes the shape of the next six years, not any school’s enrollment. The option that adopts the national percentages as school targets gets the source right and the use wrong. Seeking the division’s endorsement is a single step that does not resolve the use; dismissing the projection discards a reliable signal that the school’s Grade 7 will shrink.

Indicator 1.4.1: Identify relevant research findings from reliable sources in facilitating data-driven and evidence-based innovations to improve school performance.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). A larger boat may reduce closures, but it does not provide for instruction on the days the sea is unsafe.
• B (3 points, Relational). This plans for the hazard the school actually faces, with local partners and a way to keep instruction going when the crossing closes.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). A record of lost days is not a contingency plan, and the guidelines say when to suspend, not how to keep learning going.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Following the guidelines is necessary, but keeping materials in school means instruction stops for every suspended day, which the plan was meant to avoid.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 2.5.2 asks the school head to manage school safety for disaster preparedness, mitigation and resiliency so that instruction continues. The access data in this series count 178 public schools reachable by foot or boat alone among those reporting, and typhoon suspensions fall hardest on them. A contingency plan that works has local triggers, materials prepared ahead and staff assignments for closure days, built with the barangay that owns the boats. The option that keeps materials in classrooms follows the guidelines but drops continuity, the element the indicator names. A larger boat is a single mitigation; submitting last year’s record is not a plan.

Indicator 2.5.2: Manage school safety for disaster preparedness, mitigation and resiliency to ensure continuous delivery of instruction.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Refusing a usable donation until everyone can be served leaves every learner without, which is not equity.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Accepting the donor’s terms secures the units, but deferring the learners who have never used a device leaves the inequity standing.
• C (3 points, Relational). This manages the opportunity for equity: a criterion, agreed openly, that includes the learners least likely to be served, while keeping the donor informed.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Largest-first is a criterion, but it is not an equity criterion, and borrowing on request rarely reaches the classes that need it.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 2.6.2 asks the school head to manage emerging opportunities and challenges so as to encourage equality and equity in addressing learners’ needs. The ICT data show that 65.9 percent of public schools report at least one smart television and that devices are concentrated in large urban schools, while the learner data show IP, multigrade and special-needs learners clustered in the classes least likely to have any. A donation is such an opportunity, and the equitable response is a criterion that reaches those classes. The option that accepts the donor’s terms gets the opportunity but defers equity; largest-first is a different criterion; refusing the donation serves no one.

Indicator 2.6.2: Manage emerging opportunities and challenges to encourage equality and equity in addressing the needs of learners, school personnel and other stakeholders.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). A letter may get materials once, but it leaves the system wrong and the division’s monitoring unreliable.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Leaving the system wrong because learners are attending ignores what the data are used for.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Correcting the known thirty is right, but an unverified list and no change to the process leave the next cohort unrecorded.
• D (3 points, Relational). This fixes the data, verifies it rather than taking an estimate, meets the deadline the allocation depends on and changes the process so the gap does not recur.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 2.1.2 asks the school head to manage school data and information using technology so that school operations are efficient and effective. The learner data for SY 2023-24 show returning learners concentrated at Grade 7, 1.19 percent of the grade nationally, and divisions use the tag to allocate support; a school that under-tags loses the support and distorts the division’s picture. The option that corrects the thirty gets the immediate fix but skips verification and the process change that stops the gap recurring. A letter is a single workaround; leaving the records wrong fails the indicator entirely.

Indicator 2.1.2: Manage school data and information using technology, including ICT, to ensure efficient and effective school operations.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). Locally funded personnel are common and lawful; declining the offer misreads both the fund and the personnel data.
• B (3 points, Relational). This identifies the fund’s allowable use, the person’s status as locally funded and the school head’s recording duty, which is what the policies require.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). The fund may pay, but the school cannot advance salaries from its operating funds or contract in its own name for a locally funded person.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). The fund’s allowable uses include personnel services approved by the local school board; routing money through the PTA is not the mechanism.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.2.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand the policies, guidelines and issuances on managing finances, including funds that reach the school from local government. The Special Education Fund, under the Local Government Code and the joint guidelines on its use, may support school personnel approved by the local school board, and the personnel data for SY 2023-24 count 29,938 locally funded personnel in public schools, 12.6 percent of teachers in BARMM. The option that signs a contract and advances salaries from operating funds gets the fund’s purpose right but the mechanism wrong. Declining misreads the policy; routing through the PTA invents one.

Indicator 2.2.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of policies, guidelines and issuances in managing finances such as allocation, procurement, disbursement and liquidation aligned with the school plan.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This manages the facility under the policies: a corrected record, a costed request on time, and a usable arrangement for the learner while it is pending.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Clearing the unit helps, but without the ramp and fittings it may not be usable, and the request and record remain undone.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). Accepting a half-day arrangement for a learner entitled to a full day leaves the facility problem unmanaged.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). A request is right, but it leaves a false inventory entry in place and the learner without a toilet until a new block is built.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 2.3.2 asks the school head to manage school facilities in adherence to policies on acquisition, recording, utilization, repair and maintenance. The WASH data show that 71 percent of public schools have no toilet usable by a learner with a disability, and the quality audit found inventories that no longer match what actually stands on the site. Managing the facility means correcting the record, costing the repair for the funding window and providing for the learner meanwhile. The option that requests a new block gets acquisition right but leaves the record wrong and the learner waiting. Clearing the storage is a single step; deferring to the next cycle manages nothing.

Indicator 2.3.2: Manage school facilities and equipment in adherence to policies, guidelines and issuances on acquisition, recording, utilization, repair and maintenance, storage and disposal.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Teaching loads are the school head’s to manage within the guidelines; leaving mismatches in place is not fidelity to the items.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Requesting items is reasonable, but it leaves overloads and idle loads in place for a decision the division has already said it cannot make.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Moving all three removes overloads, but assigning teachers outside their qualifications and hoping for training later breaks the guideline the indicator rests on.
• D (3 points, Relational). This matches teachers to subjects within their qualifications, uses the remaining load within the track and records the change for the division, which is staffing under the guidelines.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 2.4.2 asks the school head to manage staffing such as teaching load distribution and subject area assignment in adherence to laws and guidelines. The senior high strand series shows the technical-vocational track’s share of enrollment falling since SY 2019-20 while the humanities strand grew, so this mismatch is common. The guidelines allow assignment within a teacher’s qualifications and set load limits, and the school head holds the authority. The option that reassigns all three gets the load problem but ignores qualifications; requesting items is a single step; leaving the loads untouched misreads the school head’s authority.

Indicator 2.4.2: Manage staffing such as teaching load distribution and grade level and subject area assignment in adherence to laws, policies, guidelines and issuances based on the needs of the school.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This takes the general lesson: the distinction between zero, unknown and not applicable must be explicit in any record the school keeps or reports.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Filling blanks with zeros works for grades a school does not offer but would turn missing values elsewhere into false zeros.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Treating the convention as an error to be reported misreads a documented change and leaves the school unable to use the file.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). Sums are unaffected, but averages, counts of schools and comparisons across years are, which is why the distinction matters.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.1.1 asks the aspiring school head to demonstrate skills in managing school data and information using technology. The quality audit in this series found that the SY 2025-26 enrollment file writes blanks where earlier years wrote zeros, and that averages and school counts change depending on how the blanks are read. The skill the indicator names is knowing that a blank is not a zero and keeping that distinction explicit in the school’s own records. The option that fills blanks with zeros gets the special case right and the general rule wrong. Reporting blanks as errors is a single reaction; assuming no effect is a misconception about how data are summarized.

Indicator 2.1.1: Demonstrate skills in managing school data and information using technology, including ICT.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). Recording them as standard rooms misstates the inventory and hides the shortage the classroom request depends on.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Rooms in use are the school head’s responsibility whoever built them, and closing them without alternative space harms the learners.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Inspection is one duty, but it does not address recording or the replacement request.
• D (3 points, Relational). This covers recording, safe utilization and the replacement request, which are the three duties the policies assign for a non-standard room.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.3.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand the policies on acquisition, recording, utilization, repair and maintenance of school facilities. The facilities data for SY 2023-24 show makeshift classrooms in more than half the schools of some divisions, Digos City and Canlaon City among them, and the inventory distinguishes them from instructional rooms precisely so that the shortage is visible. The option that records them as instructional rooms gets utilization right but corrupts the record the request depends on. Inspection alone is one duty; abandoning the rooms misreads responsibility for facilities in use.

Indicator 2.3.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of policies, guidelines and issuances on acquisition, recording, utilization, repair and maintenance, storage, and disposal in managing school facilities and equipment.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). A school head cannot ask for a policy to be suspended; the gap is managed and documented, not exempted.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Absorbing the work is consistent with the order, which gives it to school heads and non-teaching personnel, but it ignores the clustering and contract-of-service or job-order hiring the order provides and leaves the gap undocumented.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). The removal of administrative tasks from teachers applies whether or not the school has non-teaching staff.
• D (3 points, Relational). This reads the issuance together with the school’s staffing: keep administrative tasks off teachers, use the clustering and contract-of-service measures the order provides, and document the gap for the request.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand the laws, policies and issuances on managing school staff. DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024 removed administrative tasks from teachers, and the personnel data for SY 2023-24 show an Administrative Officer II position in only 29.6 percent of public schools, so most school heads must implement the order with the staff they have. The option that absorbs everything personally gets the direction of the order but misses the clustering and contract-of-service hiring it allows (Section V.A.2). Continuing to assign teachers misreads the order’s scope; seeking suspension misreads the school head’s authority.

Indicator 2.4.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of laws, policies, guidelines and issuances on managing school staff.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This describes safety as assessment, planning, resourcing and practice, which is the duty the policies assign the school head.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Requesting the two common features addresses part of the gap, but it skips the assessment and leaves the plan untested.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Posting routes and numbers is one measure of a plan, not the duty.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). The school head is accountable for safety on the school grounds; the barangay is a partner, not a substitute.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.5.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand the laws, policies and issuances on managing school safety for disaster preparedness, mitigation and resiliency. The access and safety analysis in this series shows large shares of public schools reporting no fence, guard or other listed safety feature, which is why the policies make the school head responsible for a hazard assessment, a disaster risk reduction plan and regular drills. The option that requests a fence and guard gets two features but not the assessment and practice. Posting routes is a single measure; delegating safety to the barangay misreads accountability.

Indicator 2.5.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of laws, policies, guidelines and issuances on managing school safety for disaster preparedness, mitigation and resiliency in ensuring continuous delivery of instruction.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This describes feedback as validated evidence used in a development conversation, which is what the indicator means by helping teachers improve.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Public comparison by name is not development and discourages honest feedback.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Using raw feedback as a rating component skips validation and turns a development tool into a sanction.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Filing feedback preserves it but does not help the teacher improve.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.3.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand the use of feedback from learners, parents and other stakeholders to help teachers improve. The PPSSH’s Domain 3 places feedback within technical assistance: it is validated against observation and results and discussed with the teacher as a basis for development goals, not used as a score. The data reports show why validation matters, since a school’s assessment mean on a handful of learners is itself uncertain. The option that averages feedback into the rating gets the collection right and the use wrong. Filing it is one step; public comparison by name is a misconception.

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; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). Restoring cubicles is right, but toilets without water will not stay functional, and waiting a cycle for the connection delays the input everything else needs.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Soap and alcohol are a stopgap for one part of the problem and leave the toilets and the water as they are.
• C (3 points, Relational). This secures water first, because toilets and handwashing both depend on it, then uses the rest where the ratio is worst and keeps the facilities usable through a schedule.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). A healthy environment does not wait for a nurse; the facilities are the school head’s to manage now.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 3.6.2 asks the school head to manage a learner-friendly, inclusive and healthy learning environment. The WASH data for SY 2023-24 show about 62 girls per functional female toilet bowl in public schools, handwashing facilities without reliable water in many, and a nurse position in 0.8 percent of schools, so the environment is the school head’s to manage without a health professional on staff. The option that restores cubicles first gets the priority but not the dependency on water. Soap from the PTA is a single stopgap; waiting for a nurse leaves the environment unmanaged.

Indicator 3.6.2: Manage a learner-friendly, inclusive and healthy learning environment.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Career awareness is a junior high responsibility under the curriculum; the choice is made at the end of Grade 10.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). A single pre-enrollment session is one element of a career guidance program, not its integration into the curriculum.
• C (3 points, Relational). This describes integration across subjects and guidance, for every learner, aimed at informed choice, which is what the indicator means.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Quotas by sex are not career awareness; the data are a reason to inform choice, not to engineer it.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.7.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand how career awareness and opportunities are integrated into learning experiences aligned with the curriculum. The strand analysis in this series finds the female share of STEM rising from 46.3 to 54.4 percent and of TVL falling from 45.6 to 39.3 percent between SY 2017-18 and SY 2025-26, a shift that career guidance should help learners read as information about options, not as a rule about who belongs where. The option proposing quotas by sex misreads integration as steering. A single session is one element; leaving the matter to senior high misreads the curriculum.

Indicator 3.7.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the integration of career awareness and opportunities in the provision of learning experiences aligned with the curriculum.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). Employers at the orientation add information, but one fourth-quarter event does not make career awareness part of the learning experience.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Hearing about available strands is one element, and it describes what exists rather than what the learners’ futures need.
• C (3 points, Relational). This ensures integration through the grades and the subjects, uses the local labor information and acts on the supply problem through the division.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). Accepting the constraint as fixed abandons the indicator’s duty to ensure career awareness.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 3.7.2 asks the school head to ensure the integration of career awareness and opportunities in learning experiences aligned with the curriculum. The strand data show the humanities strand growing fastest nationally and the technical-vocational track shrinking, and the National Education Plan links senior high offerings to local labor demand, which a junior high school can inform through the division. A program that integrates career awareness runs through Grades 7 to 10 and across subjects, not in one fourth-quarter orientation. The option that invites employers improves the one event but leaves integration undone. Coordinators’ visits are a single element; keeping the orientation accepts the gap.

Indicator 3.7.2: Ensure integration of career awareness and opportunities in the provision of learning experiences aligned with the curriculum.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; EDCOM II, National Education Plan 2026-2035 (2026); NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This names the three features the policy requires: positive discipline, due process through the committee and the committee’s role in bullying and abuse.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). The policy limits discipline to positive, non-violent measures with due process; it does not leave sanctions to individual judgment.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). A handbook of offenses and penalties is a usual instrument, but the policy constrains what the penalties may be and how cases are handled.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Posting rules is a step toward fairness, not what the policy requires of the rules themselves.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.8.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand national and local policies on learner discipline. DepEd Order No. 040, s. 2012, the child protection policy, requires positive and non-violent discipline, creates the child protection committee and sets due process for bullying and abuse, and the Anti-Bullying Act’s implementing rules add reporting duties; school rules must fit inside those. The learner data show returning learners and over-age learners concentrated at entry grades, where discipline rules are tested most. The option describing a handbook of penalties gets the instrument but not the constraints. Posting rules is one step; leaving sanctions to teacher judgment contradicts the policy.

Indicator 3.8.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of existing national and local policies related to learner discipline.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). Using the committee is right, but a separate stricter section for returnees, even temporarily, is discrimination the rules cannot carry.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Stakeholder involvement does not license rules that single out a group; collaboration operates within the child protection policy.
• C (3 points, Relational). This applies the rules through the committee and the stakeholders, and refuses a discriminatory regime while still reviewing the rules collaboratively.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Undertakings address the individuals, but they bypass the committee and the collaborative review the indicator asks for.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 3.8.2 asks the school head to implement learner discipline policies developed collaboratively with parents, school personnel and the community, which means both using the committee and keeping the rules within the child protection policy. The learner data show Balik-Aral learners concentrated at Grade 7, 1.19 percent of the grade, often older than their classmates, so pressure to segregate them is foreseeable. The option that uses the committee but concedes the separate section gets the process right and the substance wrong. Undertakings are a single measure that bypasses the committee; approving the section misreads collaboration as majority rule.

Indicator 3.8.2: Implement learner discipline policies that are developed collaboratively with stakeholders including parents, school personnel and the community.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This uses the result where it points, at the cohort and the component that were weak, and sets a target to check whether the intervention works.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Reteaching the missed items is one step, but it treats a cohort weakness as last quarter’s lesson.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). Uncertainty in a school mean argues for monitoring, not for waiting three years to find out.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). The package is right for the early grades, but delaying numeracy to Grade 6 leaves the cohort’s weakest component unaddressed for two years.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 3.4.2 asks the school head to utilize learning outcomes in developing data-based interventions to maintain learner achievement. The ELLNA report shows numeracy as the weakest component in every region, and the persistence analysis finds that schools low on ELLNA tend to be low on the Grade 6 NAT three years later, so the cohort between the two assessments is where an intervention can still change the outcome. The option that implements the package and defers numeracy to Grade 6 gets the package right and the timing wrong. Reteaching missed items is a single step; waiting for the next result wastes the warning.

Indicator 3.4.2: Utilize learning outcomes in developing data-based interventions to maintain learner achievement and attain other performance indicators.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). A school-level correlation would rest on a few dozen learners and settles nothing; the question is what the tools are for.
• B (3 points, Relational). This gives technical assistance on what each tool measures and uses each for its design purpose, which is what the indicator asks of the school head.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Adding quarterly grades is sounder, but it keeps the screen in a predictive role the evidence says it cannot play.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). The assumption that reading level predicts the assessment is the one the evidence contradicts.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 3.5.2 asks the school head to provide technical assistance to teachers in using assessment tools and results consistent with policy. The persistence analysis in this series finds the CRLA share at grade level and the ELLNA mean correlating at only 0.06 to 0.08 across the same schools, so the reading screen does not predict the assessment; it is a classroom grouping tool and the assessment measures literacy and numeracy components. The option that combines the screen with grades is more cautious but keeps the wrong use. Asking for a school-level correlation is a single step on too few learners; approving the proposal rests on the assumption the evidence rejects.

Indicator 3.5.2: Provide technical assistance to teachers in using learning assessment tools, strategies and results consistent with curriculum requirements to ensure accountability in achieving higher learning outcomes.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Contextualization is school-based by design; the framework is implemented in the school.
• B (3 points, Relational). This keeps the standards and adapts the delivery with the community, which is what contextualization means.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Replacing competencies is not contextualization; the standards are national and the adaptation is in content and delivery.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Translation is one element of contextualization, not the whole.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.1.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand school-based review, contextualization and implementation of learning standards. The learner data for SY 2023-24 tag 9.3 percent of public-school learners as Indigenous Peoples and more than 70 percent in every grade in the Cordillera, so contextualization through the indigenous peoples education framework is daily work in those schools. It keeps the national competencies and adapts content, materials and language with the community. The option that replaces competencies misreads the standards as optional. Translation is one element; leaving the work to the central office misreads where contextualization happens.

Indicator 3.1.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of school-based review, contextualization and implementation of learning standards.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This describes the planning, rotation and grade-specific assessment that multigrade pedagogy requires.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Teaching grades in turn is a common fallback, but it leaves each grade idle for most of the period and is not multigrade pedagogy.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). Teaching one grade’s lesson to all denies the higher grades their own competencies.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Peer tutoring is one technique within a multigrade class, not the pedagogy.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.2.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand teaching standards and pedagogies within and across learning areas, and multigrade teaching is a pedagogy a school head in a small school must be able to recognize and support. The learner data for SY 2023-24 count 280,087 public elementary learners in multigrade classes in 5,974 schools, one in eight public schools. DepEd’s multigrade program expects a themed lesson with differentiated tasks, rotation and grade-specific assessment. The option that teaches grades in turn is the fallback that the program exists to replace. Peer tutoring is one technique; teaching the lowest grade to all is a misconception.

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. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). Asking for a specific course is reasonable, but waiting for it postpones the goals that the self-assessment already supports.
• B (3 points, Relational). This sets goals from the self-assessment, matches each to a development means at hand and uses the course where it fits, which is what the indicator describes.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). The course helps, but delegating the work you need to learn to the officer leaves the gap unaddressed.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). An overall rating is not a development goal, and experience without a plan is not professional development.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 4.1.2 asks the school head to set personal and professional development goals based on self-assessment aligned with the PPSSH. The assessment for school heads is developmental: its individual report shows the competency level by domain so that the candidate can target interventions, and the standards’ Domain 2 names procurement, inventory and records as the operations the school head manages. The personnel data show an administrative officer position in under a third of schools, so a principal who has one has a resource many lack. The option that delegates the work gets the course but not the goal. Waiting for a specific course is a single step; targeting a rating is not a goal.

Indicator 4.1.2: Set personal and professional development goals based on self-assessment aligned with the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Attributing no change to the learners and time avoids the reflection the evidence calls for.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Adopting one of the teachers’ points is a partial response that skips the reflection on design and supervision.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Changing programs without examining why the first failed repeats the original decision in a new form.
• D (3 points, Relational). This is professional reflection applied: the evidence is examined, the school head’s own part is included and the practice changes as a result.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 4.2.2 asks the school head to apply professional reflection and learning to improve one’s own practice. The CRLA data show about one Grade 1 learner in twenty at grade level in the five regions covered, so a reading program that produces no change is a common experience, and the standards expect the school head to examine the evidence, including their own decisions, rather than swap programs. The option that replaces the program gets the need to change but skips the reflection. Extending sessions is a single adjustment; continuing unchanged is a refusal to reflect.

Indicator 4.2.2: Apply professional reflection and learning to improve one’s practice.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Waiting for the supervisor to convene makes networking someone else’s duty.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). The coffee group is a network, but without structure or wider reach it will not upgrade practice much.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Formal networks are valuable, but dropping the local group loses the network closest to the school’s problems.
• D (3 points, Relational). This participates in networks at three levels, with a purpose tied to development goals, which is what the indicator means by upgrading practice through networks.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 4.3.2 asks the school head to participate in professional networks to upgrade knowledge and skills and enhance practice. The supervisor-load analysis in this series finds a median of 17 schools per district and a third of districts above twenty, so in a district of forty-one the supervisor’s visits are rare and peer networks carry much of the professional support. The option that joins the formal networks but drops the local group gets the structure and loses the nearest source of help. Keeping only the coffee group is a single network; waiting for the supervisor is not participation.

Indicator 4.3.2: Participate in professional networks to upgrade knowledge and skills and to enhance practice.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Accountability for the plan does not prevent delegation; refusing to delegate denies the opportunities.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). One nominated assistant shares the load but gives one person an opportunity, not the teams the indicator names.
• C (3 points, Relational). This creates real leadership roles with support and a record, for individuals and teams, which is what providing opportunities means.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Using the master teachers is right, but limiting roles to rank and keeping two programs leaves opportunities on the table.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 4.6.2 asks the school head to provide opportunities to individuals and teams in performing leadership roles and responsibilities. The personnel data for SY 2023-24 show a principal position in 43.4 percent of public schools and head teachers only in 27.7 percent, so middle leadership often has to be built by designation, and the National Education Plan’s pipeline of new principal and head teacher items will be filled from teachers who have led something. The option that designates the master teachers alone gets the delegation but limits it by rank. A single nominated assistant is one opportunity; refusing to delegate provides none.

Indicator 4.6.2: Provide opportunities to individuals and teams in performing leadership roles and responsibilities.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; EDCOM II, National Education Plan 2026-2035 (2026); NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). Granting benefits the contracts do not carry is outside the school head’s authority and creates a false record.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). The issuances on locally funded personnel assign the school head duties; disclaiming any role fails them.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Referral and the request for items are both useful, but they leave the teachers without the accurate information and advocacy the school head owes them.
• D (3 points, Relational). This implements the issuances as they apply to each contract, pursues what the local board can give and keeps the record that future rights depend on.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 4.7.2 asks the school head to implement laws, policies and issuances on the rights, privileges and benefits of school personnel to ensure their welfare. The personnel data for SY 2023-24 count 29,938 locally funded personnel in public schools, and the analysis in this series shows their benefits depend on the local contract and the local school board’s resolutions, not on the Department’s rules for plantilla staff. The school head’s duty is accurate information, advocacy with the board and a service record. The option that refers them elsewhere and requests items gets two steps without the duty. Granting benefits unilaterally exceeds authority; disclaiming any role fails the welfare duty.

Indicator 4.7.2: Implement laws, policies, guidelines and issuances on the rights, privileges and benefits of school personnel to ensure their general welfare.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). A system that cannot reward a documented gain in retention is not motivating performance.
• B (3 points, Relational). This rewards the result through the school’s own system, broadens the system to teams and outcomes and links recognition to improvement.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). A division nomination is recognition, but it leaves the school’s own system unable to reward what it most wants repeated.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Thanks and a note in the record are a minimal acknowledgement, not a rewards system.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 4.8.2 asks the school head to implement a school rewards system that recognizes and motivates learners, personnel and stakeholders for exemplary performance. The learner data show returning learners concentrated at Grade 7 and the cohort-flow analysis shows the junior high transitions leaking, so retaining thirty returnees is a result worth repeating; a rewards system that recognizes only the top individual rating cannot reward it. The option that nominates the team to the division gets recognition from elsewhere and leaves the system unchanged. Thanks and a note are a single gesture; keeping the system misreads motivation.

Indicator 4.8.2: Implement a school rewards system to recognize and motivate learners, school personnel and other stakeholders for exemplary performance and/or continued support.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). Keeping the target with class records as evidence does not remove the incentive the report describes.
• B (3 points, Relational). This reads performance management as improvement through objectives and evidence, and draws the lesson about which targets and evidence to use.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). Treating the system as paperwork misunderstands its purpose.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Excluding outcomes altogether overcorrects; the problem is the choice of target and evidence, not outcomes as such.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand the implementation of the performance management system in improving performance. EDCOM II’s final report finds that promotion-rate targets in the IPCRF and OPCRF push teachers toward passing learners who have not met the standard, and the assessment data in this series show how small and uncertain the outcome measures available to a school are. The system’s purpose is improvement through agreed objectives, coaching and evidence, which means choosing targets within the school’s influence and evidence that cannot be gamed. The option keeping the target with records as evidence gets the evidence but not the incentive. Excluding outcomes overcorrects; treating the system as forms misreads it.

Indicator 4.4.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the implementation of the performance management system in improving school personnel and office performance.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026.

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). Attendance at generic training does not address the gap the observations found.
• B (3 points, Relational). This targets the identified gap, uses more than one development mode and checks for change in practice, which is what the indicator describes.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). The observed practice is the gap multigrade pedagogy exists to close.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Guides are one input, but reading them is not development of practice.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.5.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand professional development in enhancing strengths and addressing performance gaps. The learner data for SY 2023-24 put 280,087 learners in multigrade classes in 5,974 public schools, and whole-class teaching of one grade’s lesson is the common fallback where teachers have not been trained in multigrade planning. Development that works is targeted at the observed gap, uses training with coaching and demonstration, and is followed up in the classroom. The option sending teachers to any scheduled training gets the mode but not the target. Guides alone are one input; denying the gap is a misconception.

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. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). An open call is fair, but declining to recommend leaves the identification the task asked for undone.
• B (3 points, Relational). This identifies capability from evidence of what each teacher has done and matches it to the role, while finding a place for the senior teachers’ strengths too.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Naming the capable teachers as assistants acknowledges them, but it puts the roles with the expectation rather than the strength.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). Rank is not evidence of capability for a specific role; this ignores the strengths in front of you.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.6.1 asks the aspiring school head to identify the strengths, capabilities and potentials of individuals and teams in performing leadership roles. The evidence of capability in the scenario is what each teacher has already done, and the PPSSH’s Domain 4 treats leadership development as building on such strengths rather than on rank. The personnel data show 91 percent of elementary positions at Teacher I to III, so leadership for school programs must come from that pool. The option that keeps the senior teachers as coordinators and names the capable ones as assistants gets the capabilities noticed but not used. An open call without a recommendation is a single step; rank-based selection ignores the strengths.

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

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This applies the rules to each teacher’s whole load, places administrative work where the rules put it and uses the remedies the rules provide.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). A six-hour timetable meets one limit, but tasks outside it are within the eight hours and the rules, not outside them.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Informing teachers is one step; the school head assigns duties and is accountable for the limits.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). The rules are mandatory and include the small-school case; necessity does not suspend them.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.7.1 asks the aspiring school head to know the laws, policies and issuances on the rights, privileges and benefits of school personnel, and the workload rules are among the most consequential. DepEd Order No. 005, s. 2024 sets six hours of actual teaching, at most, and two hours of ancillary tasks within the eight-hour day and DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024 removes administrative tasks from teachers, while the personnel data show an administrative officer in under a third of schools, so the school head applies the limits with the staff available. The option that times only the timetable misses the tasks inside the eight hours. Posting the rules is a single step; treating them as guidance misreads them.

Indicator 4.7.1: Display knowledge of laws, policies, guidelines and issuances on the rights, privileges and benefits of school personnel to promote their general welfare.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This builds the relationship through the structure that exists for it, the board, and gives the authority the evidence on which to decide.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). A visit is a good step, but without the board and a proposal it leaves the decision where it was.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). Deference is not a relationship; the board exists so that schools’ needs are heard before the fund is spent.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). The superintendent is an ally, but asking the division to carry the request leaves the school head’s own relationship with the mayor unbuilt.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 5.1.2 asks the school head to build constructive relationships with authorities and other stakeholders to foster an enabling environment. The province data in this series show Rizal, Cavite and the Metro Manila districts at 57 to 66 public learners per instructional room, and the local school board, chaired by the local chief executive with the superintendent as co-chair, is where the Special Education Fund’s priorities are set. The option that asks the superintendent to intervene uses a legitimate channel but not the school head’s own relationship. A visit is a single step; accepting the decision abandons the relationship the indicator describes.

Indicator 5.1.2: Build constructive relationships with authorities, colleagues, parents and other stakeholders to foster an enabling and supportive environment for learners.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Schools may enter agreements with private partners under the rules; refusing any contract misreads them.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Waiting avoids risk but leaves learners unconnected for an unknown period when partners are offering help.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Taking the free year is attractive, but signing for costs the school cannot meet creates a liability, not a partnership.
• D (3 points, Relational). This initiates a partnership on sustainable terms, documents the stakeholders’ commitments and coordinates with the division’s own program.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 5.5.2 asks the school head to initiate partnerships with the community and other stakeholders for the implementation of school programs. The ICT data for SY 2023-24 show about 78 percent of public schools with an internet connection and the connected schools averaging higher on the Grade 6 assessment within a division, so connectivity is worth pursuing, and the rules allow schools to enter documented partnerships with private firms. The option that signs the contract gets the opportunity and ignores the sustainability that a partnership needs. Declining and waiting is a single choice that gives up the offer; refusing any contract misreads the rules on partnerships.

Indicator 5.5.2: Initiate partnerships with the community, such as parents, alumni, authorities, industries and other stakeholders, to strengthen support for learner development, as well as school and community improvement.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Treating everyone the same when the outcomes differ is not inclusion; inclusive practice responds to difference.
• B (3 points, Relational). This exhibits inclusive practice with the community’s knowledge, changes the school rather than the learners and measures whether it works.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Seating and calling on learners is a classroom measure that treats the symptom.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). A culture day and a club are visible gestures, but they leave the daily practices and the community relationship untouched.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 5.3.2 asks the school head to exhibit inclusive practices, including culture responsiveness, to foster awareness, acceptance and respect. The learner data for SY 2023-24 show the share of Indigenous Peoples learners rising through elementary and falling through junior high, from 9.8 percent in Grade 7 to 8.4 percent in Grade 10 nationally and more steeply in some regions, which is the pattern in the scenario. Inclusive practice starts from the community’s own account and changes the school’s practices, then checks retention. The option offering a culture day and a club gets visibility but not practice. Seating is a single classroom measure; sameness ignores the outcome gap.

Indicator 5.3.2: Exhibit inclusive practices, such as gender sensitivity, physical and mental health awareness and culture responsiveness, to foster awareness, acceptance and respect.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This communicates in writing and in speech, to every member including the learner, in a form they can use, and leaves a record.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Sending figures is one channel; without the explanation and the discussion it does not communicate.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). Dismissing the council and withholding explanation is the opposite of effective communication with stakeholders.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Complete data in the division’s format is accurate but not communication the council can use.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 5.4.2 asks the school head to communicate effectively in speaking and in writing to teachers, learners, parents and other stakeholders through positive use of communication platforms. The projection in this series shows Grade 7 nationally falling about 24 percent by SY 2031-32 but describes a national shape, not a school, and a school above fifty learners per room can still need rooms while shrinking. Communicating that to a mixed council requires a plain brief, a spoken explanation and a record. The option presenting the division’s format gets completeness but not usability. A message before the meeting is a single channel; dismissing the council fails the indicator.

Indicator 5.4.2: Communicate effectively in speaking and in writing to teachers, learners, parents and other stakeholders, through positive use of communication platforms, to facilitate information sharing, collaboration and support.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Stopping the association and reassigning the problem misreads the school head’s role in managing it.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). A written reminder is right, but allowing a collection already seen as compulsory lets a non-compliant plan proceed.
• C (3 points, Relational). This manages the organization by the guidelines: the officers are helped to make the plan compliant before it is implemented.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Keeping the school’s distance protects the school, not the families, and leaves the plan unmanaged.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 5.2.2 asks the school head to manage school organizations such as parent-teacher associations by applying relevant policies and guidelines. The access and safety analysis in this series shows large shares of public schools without a fence or a guard, so associations often take security on themselves, and the guidelines on parent-teacher associations permit only voluntary contributions approved in a general assembly, with no learner disadvantaged. The option that allows the collection with a reminder gets one safeguard but lets the non-compliant plan go ahead. Declining to announce is a single distancing step; stopping the association misreads the school head’s role.

Indicator 5.2.2: Manage school organizations, such as learner organizations, faculty clubs and parent-teacher associations, by applying relevant policies and guidelines to support the attainment of institutional goals.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). A barangay may support a school; the planning cycle does not exclude local help.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Waiting a month for a signature may miss the council’s session and the opportunity.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Handing the follow-up to parents is one channel but leaves the school’s own request unmade.
• D (3 points, Relational). This deals with the authority promptly and properly, within your role, with the principal’s agreement and a written request the council can act on.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.1.1 asks the aspiring school head to demonstrate skills in dealing with authorities, colleagues, parents and other stakeholders to encourage an enabling environment. The access data in this series count 178 public schools reachable by foot or boat alone among those reporting, and the barangay is the authority closest to such a school. Dealing with it well means acting promptly within one’s role, with the principal’s agreement and a written request the council can act on. The option that waits for the principal’s signature is correct about authority but risks the chance. Passing the follow-up to parents is a single step; refusing local help is a misconception.

Indicator 5.1.1: Demonstrate skills in dealing with authorities, colleagues, parents and other stakeholders to encourage an enabling and supportive environment for learners.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This describes supervision under the guidelines together with the learner government’s voice and autonomy.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Attending once is a minimal form of supervision, not the role.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). The guidelines give learner organizations a voice in school decisions; treating them as a club misreads them.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Approval of officers and activities overreaches; the guidelines provide for election and an adviser, not for the school head’s approval.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.2.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand policies and guidelines on managing school organizations, including learner organizations. The guidelines on learner government provide for elections, an adviser and participation in school decisions, and the data in this series show matters, such as toilets and safety, on which learners’ evidence is often the first the school has. The option that approves officers and activities confuses supervision with control. Attending the assembly is a single act; treating the government as a club denies the voice the guidelines give it.

Indicator 5.2.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of policies and guidelines on managing school organizations, such as learner organizations, faculty clubs and parent-teacher associations, in support of the attainment of institutional goals.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). A seminar and a report are activities the program counts, not the examination of practice the data call for.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Encouraging the girls addresses one pattern and leaves the boys’ pattern and the practices behind both untouched.
• C (3 points, Relational). This describes gender sensitivity as attention to differential effects, adjustment of practice and monitoring by sex, which is what the indicator means.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). Identical treatment where effects differ is not sensitivity; the concept exists because effects differ.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.3.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand inclusive practices such as gender sensitivity. The strand analysis in this series shows girls now a majority in STEM nationally and a shrinking minority in TVL, while the enrollment series shows the female share of each cohort rising with grade, which means boys leave earlier, so the patterns in the scenario are real and run in both directions. Gender sensitivity means examining the school’s own practices for their effects by sex and adjusting them, with the data as the check. The option proposing a seminar gets an activity but not the examination. Encouraging the girls is a single step; identical treatment is a misconception.

Indicator 5.3.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of inclusive practices, such as gender sensitivity, physical and mental health awareness and culture responsiveness, to foster awareness, acceptance and respect.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). Withholding the figures to avoid alarm treats parents as unable to read a number and leaves them without the facts.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). A false statement is not communication; it is the opposite of the honesty the principal asked for.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Reproducing the division’s table is accurate but unreadable on a phone and unusable by parents.
• D (3 points, Relational). This is competent writing for the audience and platform: accurate, plain, brief and tied to action.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to demonstrate competent skills in speaking and writing and in using communication platforms. The division league tables in this series show the spread across divisions, from 12 to 82 public learners per instructional room and from 15 to 136 per functional toilet bowl, and a parent report that places the school within that spread must be short, plain and tied to action if it is to be read on a phone. The option that reproduces the division’s table gets accuracy and loses the reader. Withholding figures is a single evasion; claiming the standard is met is a falsehood.

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. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). Alumni funding may help, but involving one donor leaves the community’s other capacities and the attendance plan unused.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Accepting the loss of a fifth of attendance abandons the learners and the community’s willingness to help.
• C (3 points, Relational). This involves several community groups with specific contributions, on evidence, with roles agreed and written down.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). A request to the council is one step and leaves the rest of the community uninvolved.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.5.1 asks the aspiring school head to involve the community, including parents, alumni, authorities and other stakeholders, in school programs and projects. The access data for SY 2023-24 record thousands of public schools tagged hard to reach and 178 reachable only on foot or by boat, where attendance depends on the route as much as on the school. Involving the community means matching each group to a contribution, showing the evidence and agreeing roles. The option that asks the alumni to fund a bridge gets a contribution but involves one group. Requesting the council is a single step; accepting the attendance loss involves no one.

Indicator 5.5.1: Involve the community, such as parents, alumni, authorities, industries and other stakeholders, in school programs, projects and activities to gain support for learner development, as well as school and community improvement.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26).