NASH Practice Questions With Answers: 50 Items on the PPSSH

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Carrying forward a plan built on assumptions that the data no longer support skips the phase entirely and leaves the targets disconnected from the school.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Division targets belong in the plan’s alignment, but copying them replaces the analysis of the school’s own state with someone else’s conclusions.
• C (3 points, Relational). The situational analysis describes the school’s current state from its own evidence, which is what the planning team needs before it can set achievable targets.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Stakeholder views are part of the analysis, but a list of felt problems without the school’s data cannot show where the school actually stands.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.2.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand the phases of plan development, of which the situational analysis is the first. The PPSSH booklet says school heads in Domain 1 must have a complete understanding of the school’s current and desired states, and the data reports show why: national enrollment has fallen since SY 2022-23 in every region except BARMM, so inherited growth assumptions are often wrong. The option that copies the division’s targets gets alignment right but skips the description of the school’s own state that the targets must rest on.

Indicator 1.2.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the phases of development and implementation of 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 = 0, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1.

• A (0 points, Prestructural). The data show a sustained decline, not a temporary dip, and keeping a request the evidence no longer supports misleads the division’s programming.
• B (3 points, Relational). This revises the plan with the planning team on the school’s own evidence and keeps the governance steps, which is what implementing a plan with the team means.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). The revision rests on the right data, but the school head makes it alone and bypasses the planning team and the council the plan belongs to.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Flagging the decline is honest, but leaving the targets and the request unchanged passes the school’s planning decision to the division.

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, not alone. The PPSSH’s Domain 1 description expects school heads to execute collaborative strategies with stakeholders in response to the school’s changing needs, and the enrollment series shows kindergarten down from 2.27 million to 1.99 million nationally with smaller cohorts moving up. The option that corrects the targets alone gets the evidence right but drops the team and the council from a decision the standards assign to them.

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Dismissing reliable evidence because it was gathered elsewhere abandons the data-driven practice the indicator describes.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Citation is a formality here; the proposal’s problem is that the finding is about connectivity and association, not about devices.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Adding the connection is right, but treating the finding as proof that tablets raise scores keeps a purchase the evidence does not support.
• D (3 points, Relational). This reads the finding for what it measures and what it can show, and uses it to redirect the innovation toward the input the evidence actually concerns.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to identify relevant findings from reliable sources for data-driven innovation, which includes reading a finding correctly. The data reports find elementary internet access associated with about 2.6 more Grade 6 points within a division, while computers per learner show no association with any result, and they state that these are associations in observational data. The option that accepts the finding as support for tablets adds the right request but does not connect the finding to the input it actually measures.

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

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

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This uses the finding to act on what the school controls now and routes the structural question through the rules that govern it, linking both to learner outcomes.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). A within-division finding that holds in every region and specification is reliable evidence; dismissing it leaves the school without a basis for action.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). The item request and the regrouping are reasonable, but the teachers who deliver the multigrade lessons get no technical assistance, which the finding points to.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Training is one relevant element, but waiting for a slot leaves the lessons unchanged for the learners who are behind now.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 1.4.2 asks the school head to utilize relevant research findings in data-driven innovations, which means acting on what the finding supports. The data reports find the multigrade association to be the most consistent in the files, about four points within a division, while noting it is an association and that multigrade schools are small and remote. Class organization and items are governed by division rules, so the sound action is instructional support now and a proper staffing request. The regrouping option does several right things but never connects the finding to the teachers’ practice.

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

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

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). The standardized test is the right tool for comparison, but it arrives once a year and cannot monitor a monthly intervention.
• B (3 points, Relational). This matches each tool to its purpose: a screen of every learner for monthly monitoring, and the annual tests for comparison where their intervals are narrow.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). A mean from six sampled learners carries a margin of about six points and is given once a year, so it cannot track monthly change.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). A transmuted grade of 75 can rest on an initial grade of 60, so grades cannot stand in for a measure of reading level.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.7.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand monitoring and evaluation tools and what each can show. The data reports show the Grade 6 assessment tested a median of six learners per school, giving a school mean a margin of about six points, while the reading screen counts every learner at one of five levels and can be repeated. The option that leads with the standardized test chooses a reliable instrument but misses that its timing and purpose do not fit monthly monitoring.

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

Sources: NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026.

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This chooses the tools that can show quarterly change for every learner and presents the sampled mean honestly, which is what utilizing monitoring tools means.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). One sampled mean, given once a year, is neither a quarterly measure nor a picture of the school’s learners.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). Withholding the school’s own full-coverage data from parents misreads what the national test is for and leaves the division’s request unmet.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). The reading results belong on the dashboard, but a six-learner mean cannot move quarterly and headlining it invites parents to read noise as progress.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 1.7.2 asks the school head to utilize available monitoring and evaluation tools to promote learner achievement, which includes choosing the right tool for the audience and the interval. The data reports advise building school-level monitoring on instruments with enough learners to be reliable and keeping the national assessments for division-level comparison, where intervals are about a point wide. The headline-mean option includes the reading results but still presents a six-learner mean as the measure of quarterly progress.

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

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

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). A suspended class day is not engaged time on task, and the policy expressly bars suspensions for competitions and celebrations.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Integrating observances is right, but practices within class hours and suspensions on contest days are the losses the policy was written to prevent.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). A reminder states the principle, but the calendar and the scheduling decisions that protect time are left to others.
• D (3 points, Relational). This applies each provision of the policy in the school calendar and keeps the reporting that lets the division check the class days actually held.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.3.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand policy implementation so that school operations stay consistent with issuances. EDCOM II’s Final Report cites DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2005, which requires the prescribed school days to be devoted to engaged time on task, discourages suspensions for celebrations, directs that observances be integrated into subjects, and mandates that competitions be held after class hours; it finds schools average about 191 actual class days. The option that suspends classes on contest days integrates observances correctly but gives up the class days the policy protects.

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

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). A letter informs parents, but it does not remove the reason learners stay home or reach the learners who most need the sessions.
• B (3 points, Relational). This adjusts the program to the barrier that is actually keeping learners away and enlists the community, which is what implementing a learner program means.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). Reporting learners as served when they were not falsifies the program record and leaves the learners without the support the program exists to give.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Home visits respond to absence, but they fall on teachers after class and leave the schedule that caused the absences unchanged.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 1.5.2 asks the school head to implement programs that support learners, which includes making the program reach them. EDCOM II’s Final Report finds that the remaining constraints on the ARAL Program lie in time, workforce and family-level barriers, that teachers point to chronic attendance problems among flagged learners, and that parent support and barangay-level advocacy are needed to ensure children show up. The home-visit option responds to the absences but leaves the schedule and the community role unaddressed while adding to teachers’ load.

Indicator 1.5.2: Implement programs in the school that support the development of learners.

Sources: EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Treating a low complaint count as proof of safety mistakes silence for absence of harm and discards the evidence learners offered.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). A student government is one channel, but the reason to listen is what learners know about their own safety, not the requirement to have the body.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Adopting a program is a reasonable response, but measuring progress by incident records keeps the school blind to what learners experience.
• D (3 points, Relational). This connects what learner voice adds to what administrative data miss, and names the channels through which the school can gather it.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.6.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand how learner voice informs policy and decision-making. EDCOM II’s Final Report cites PISA results in which 43 percent of girls and 53 percent of boys reported being bullied at least a few times a month, and SEA-PLM 2024 results in which the Philippine figure for head teachers reporting bullying among pupils at least monthly was 50 percent, down from 63 percent in 2019, alongside a shortage of guidance counselors. Administrative records capture only what is reported. The option that adopts a program but measures it by incident records uses learner voice once and then stops listening.

Indicator 1.6.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of utilizing learner voice to inform policy development and decision-making towards school improvement.

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

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

• A (3 points, Relational). Alignment is shown in what the programs do for the school’s own learners, which is the learner-centered purpose the vision and the standards describe.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Displaying the vision builds awareness, but a program list drawn from mandated activities is not yet connected to the learners the vision is about.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). A statement of the school’s own is one element, but alignment is about programs, not wording.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). Funding availability is not a test of alignment; letting it decide the programs replaces the vision with convenience.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.1.1 asks the aspiring school head to know the DepEd vision, mission and core values in order to foster alignment of school programs, projects and activities. The PPSSH’s first guiding principle is that the standards are learner-centered, and the learner data show whom a program must reach: Indigenous Peoples learners are 9.3 percent of public-school learners nationally and over 70 percent in CAR, and 15 percent of public schools offer multigrade classes. The option that posts and recites the vision raises awareness but does not connect the program list to the learners it should serve.

Indicator 1.1.1: Demonstrate knowledge of the DepEd vision, mission and core values to foster 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 = 0, C = 1, D = 2.

• A (3 points, Relational). This verifies, corrects and documents before the data leave the school, which is the skill of managing school data the indicator describes.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Certifying a figure known to be false is a false report, and the public files already show such entries: 316 schools report more computers than learners.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). A recount is a necessary step, but it leaves the rest of the form unchecked and the correction undocumented.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Reporting the correct count is right, but a signed report with a known error enters the division’s data and the public release before any letter is read.

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, which begins with the accuracy of what the school submits. The data quality audit of DepEd’s public files found 316 public schools reporting more academic computers than learners and one reporting 15,699 tablets. Since Project BUKAS, a school’s BEIS entries are public. The option that signs and writes separately gets the correct count to the division but lets a known error into the record first.

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

Sources: NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026.

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This applies the file’s own rules for blanks and zeros and adds the school head’s review, which is how data management ensures the records serve operations.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). The school head is accountable for the school’s records; delegating that accountability leaves known ambiguities in data others will act on.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Explaining the blanks helps the division, but the file itself still carries ambiguous cells into planning and the public release.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Zeros where a grade is not offered contradict the file’s conventions and make the school appear to offer grades it does not.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 2.1.2 asks the school head to manage school data and information so that operations are efficient and effective, and a blank that can mean zero, not offered or not reported is the commonest flaw in the files. The data quality audit found that the SY 2025-26 enrollment file wrote blanks where earlier years wrote zeros: 1,403 schools had every kindergarten to Grade 10 cell blank, 1,347 of them senior-high-only schools, and 128 schools left an offered level blank. The option that explains the blanks in a note leaves the file itself unfixed.

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

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

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). Prioritizing from the plan is right, but spending before the utilities are reserved leaves the largest fixed cost unfunded later in the year.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Discretionary does not mean personal; the fund is public money governed by allocation, procurement and liquidation rules.
• C (3 points, Relational). This connects what the fund must cover, what the plan prioritizes and how a non-implementing unit’s money actually moves, which is the understanding the indicator asks for.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Receipts matter for liquidation, but they are one requirement, not a plan for allocating the fund.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.2.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand the policies on allocation, procurement, disbursement and liquidation aligned with the school plan. EDCOM II’s Final Report describes school MOOE as the primary discretionary operational fund of school heads, finds that 30 to 70 percent of it goes to utility bills, and notes that only 2,661 of 45,225 public schools are implementing units, the rest having their MOOE processed through the division. The option that spends by priority as money arrives aligns with the plan but does not connect the fund’s fixed costs to its sequence.

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

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). A teacher item is a legitimate request, but it leaves the learners without support while the local fund that could help goes unspent.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Getting a tutor quickly serves learners, but a recurring honorarium paid privately sits outside the school’s financial controls, and the fund that exists for it is left unused.
• C (3 points, Relational). This matches the need to the fund designed for it, keeps the request aligned with the plan, and gives the association a role that fits it.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). Recording an honorarium as supplies falsifies the liquidation, which is a violation of disbursement and liquidation rules whatever the purpose.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 2.2.2 asks the school head to manage finances within the rules on allocation, disbursement and liquidation while keeping them aligned with the school plan. EDCOM II’s Final Report finds Special Education Fund resources unevenly used, with Php 16.3 billion unspent in 2022, and cites Pasay City’s locally funded reading teachers as a model that produced documented gains. The option that lets the association pay the tutor serves the learners but takes a recurring payment outside the school’s controls and ignores the fund that exists for it.

Indicator 2.2.2: Manage finances adhering to policies, guidelines and issuances in allocation, procurement, disbursement and liquidation aligned with the school plan.

Sources: EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This links the record to its two uses, programming and safety, and to the duty to keep it current, which is what managing facilities under the policy means.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Recording a false condition hides a safety risk and misdirects funds; it is a false entry in an official record.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). The inventory is a record of condition, not a request form; tagging to attract a repair corrupts the data the programming relies on.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Annual updating is part of it, but consistency with last year is not the goal; the record must change when the building does.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.3.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand the policies on recording and maintaining school facilities. The facilities data from the National School Building Inventory show 30 percent of public school buildings in good condition, 29 percent needing major repair and 9 percent for condemnation or demolition, and EDCOM II’s Final Report recommends modernizing the inventory into a regularly updated database that programming relies on. The option that updates once a year for consistency performs the task but does not connect the record to the decisions that depend on it.

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: NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Spending public funds to repair a condemned building and keeping classes in it is unsafe and contrary to the engineer’s assessment.
• B (3 points, Relational). This puts safety first, keeps the record accurate and routes the replacement through the office that programs it, connecting all three.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Recording the condemnation is necessary, but waiting leaves three classes in the building the record says must be vacated.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). The request for a new building is right, but patching a condemned structure keeps learners in a building the engineer has declared unsafe.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 2.3.2 asks the school head to manage facilities in adherence to the policies on repair, maintenance and disposal, which includes acting on an engineer’s assessment. EDCOM II’s Final Report notes DepEd Order No. 018, s. 2023 on division engineers’ role in assessment and monitoring, counts about 160,000 classrooms due for condemnation between 2025 and 2075, and records that 11,634 temporary learning spaces were in use in SY 2023-24. The option that accepts the roof repair makes the right request but leaves learners in a condemned building.

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: EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This states what the policy requires now, who carries the tasks meanwhile, and the proper route to the staffing the school lacks.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). A master teacher is a teaching position; using one as an administrative officer diverts instructional leadership and contradicts the policy’s purpose.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Requesting the item is correct, but continuing the old arrangement keeps teachers on the tasks in the meantime.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Documenting the assignments is orderly, but assigning the tasks back to teachers is what the policy removed.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to know the laws and issuances on managing school staff. EDCOM II’s Final Report records that DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024 mandated the removal of administrative tasks from public school teachers and transferred them to school heads and non-teaching personnel, that the 2025 budget funded 10,000 support positions, and that the proposed staffing standards still show gaps of 12,078 Administrative Officer II items. The option that assigns the tasks to lightly loaded teachers organizes the work but undoes the policy’s central rule.

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

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

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). A quarterly observation is some support, but the newest teachers are placed where the need is greatest with the least help.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Two full classes for one teacher exceeds a lawful teaching load and removes the Master Teacher from the coaching role the position exists for.
• C (3 points, Relational). This uses the class program, which the school head controls, to put teaching strength and coaching where the data show the need, and explains the decision.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Smaller early-grade classes address one factor, but vacant periods cannot carry sections and the placement of teachers is untouched.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 2.4.2 asks the school head to manage teaching load distribution and grade level assignment based on the needs of the school. The data reports find the pupil-teacher ratio associated with early reading and not with Grade 3 or Grade 6 scores, about four points of readers at grade level between a school at 15 and one at 45 learners per teacher, and show master teachers are 7.6 percent of nationally funded positions. The option that honors preferences and observes quarterly keeps the faculty content but places the least experienced teachers where the gap is widest.

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

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This states the rule correctly, last resort and limited period, and turns it into cooperation with the barangay that protects instruction.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Preparing for evacuees is prudent, but accepting routine use misreads a last-resort provision as a standing arrangement.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Citing the law is one element, but refusing without helping the barangay find an alternative leaves the community and the school unprotected.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). A permanent designation contradicts the law’s last-resort and limited-period conditions, and the school head is accountable for continuity of instruction.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.5.1 asks the aspiring school head to know the laws on school safety and continuity of instruction. EDCOM II’s Final Report cites Republic Act No. 10821’s mandate that schools serve as shelters only as a last resort and for a strictly limited period, finds thousands of classrooms still converted into evacuation centers with Region IV-A accounting for nearly half the SY 2023-24 cases, and notes schools operating in temporary spaces far beyond the recommended six-month limit. The option that prepares classrooms for routine use gets readiness right but misreads the law’s condition.

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

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). A resettlement of 2,000 units will enroll children in the nearest public school; treating it as outside the catchment ignores a foreseeable need.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). The decline is real, but planning on it alone while a surge is being built nearby misses the emerging challenge the briefing was for.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). The buildings matter, but the briefing stops at today’s visible problem and never reaches the demand that is coming.
• D (3 points, Relational). This identifies the challenge the current data do not yet show, connects it to the facilities constraint, and points the team to the bodies that can act.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.6.1 asks the aspiring school head to identify emerging opportunities and challenges in addressing learners’ needs. EDCOM II’s Final Report finds 58 government resettlement projects with 167,120 units built without planned school sites, implying about 8,000 classrooms of demand, and that about 123,000 school buildings are past the 25-year design life set by DepEd Order No. 064, s. 2017. The option that reports the decline and consolidates sections reads the past data correctly but does not connect them to the surge the project will bring.

Indicator 2.6.1: Identify emerging opportunities and challenges in addressing the needs of learners, school personnel and other stakeholders.

Sources: EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). The law ended compulsion, not first-language support; an English-only start ignores the evidence and the review the law requires.
• B (3 points, Relational). This grounds the language decision in the school’s learners and evidence and in the structured transition the law and the standards call for.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Using the reading screen to check is right, but a regional result for one language says nothing about the languages a given school’s learners speak.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Teacher fluency is one factor, but contextualization starts from the learners’ languages, not the teachers’ preference.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.1.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand school-based review and contextualization of learning standards. EDCOM II’s Final Report asks that the transition under Republic Act No. 12027 be managed through language mapping, school-level language plans and bridging programs, with periodic reviews of effects on early reading. The data reports show reading-screen shares at grade level from 19.4 percent in Kapampangan schools to 12.0 percent in Waray schools, almost the reverse of the Grade 3 assessment. The option that adopts the best regional language checks results but ignores the school’s own learners.

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

Sources: EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This assists the teachers to contextualize the standards for the learners actually enrolled and builds in the monitoring the decision needs.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Choosing the medium for ease of supervision rather than the learners’ languages sets aside the evidence and the learner-centered principle.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Seeking guidance is prudent, but waiting leaves the teachers without the assistance the indicator asks the school head to provide now.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). A review at year end is sensible, but ad hoc translation is not a bridging plan, and the learners already furthest behind get the least structure.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 3.1.2 asks the school head to assist teachers in contextualizing learning standards so the curriculum is relevant for learners. EDCOM II’s Final Report recommends thorough language mapping, clear school-level language plans and bridging programs under Republic Act No. 12027, and monitoring of effects on linguistically minority learners. The reading data show large differences by language of instruction. The option that allows Filipino-only teaching with translation keeps a review step but leaves the smallest community without a structured bridge.

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

Sources: EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). Observation is a tool, but observing more without knowing what multigrade practice should look like gives teachers nothing to improve toward.
• B (3 points, Relational). This reads the finding as a pedagogical need and names the practices that fit it, which is the understanding of pedagogies the indicator asks for.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). An association is not a cause, and merging schools is outside the school head’s authority and the question of teaching practice.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). More training is a reasonable instinct, but general pedagogy repeated does not address what is specific to teaching several grades together.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.2.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand pedagogies within and across learning areas in order to assist teachers. The data reports find multigrade organization the most consistent correlate of lower results, about four points within a division, and note that multigrade schools are small and remote and that the finding is an association. The PPSSH strands on curriculum and teaching are where the school head acts on it. The option that repeats general trainings supports teachers but does not connect the assistance to the specific pedagogy the setting demands.

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

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Early numeracy is a pedagogy, not only content; shuffling teachers without developing them leaves the gap and disrupts three grades.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Training is part of the answer, but a general mathematics course with no coaching and a once-a-year check leaves the teachers’ daily practice unsupported.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). A drill adds practice time, but it is not assistance to the teachers and does not address how numeracy is taught.
• D (3 points, Relational). This provides technical assistance directly, adds the training that fits the gap, and monitors with a tool that can show change within the year.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 3.2.2 asks the school head to provide technical assistance to teachers on pedagogies to improve their practice. The data reports find Numeracy the weakest Grade 3 component in every region, 53.6 overall against Filipino at 66.9, and the personnel data show master teachers scarce in small schools, so instructional coaching falls to the school head. EDCOM II’s Final Report asks that in-service training emphasize early-grade literacy and numeracy. The option that sends teachers to a general mathematics training provides development but no coaching and no within-year monitoring.

Indicator 3.2.2: Provide technical assistance to teachers on teaching standards and pedagogies within and across learning areas to improve their teaching practice.

Sources: NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Ordering grades changed to protect a promotion rate falsifies learner records and is the mass-promotion practice the grading policy does not sanction.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Deferring to the teacher may be correct in the end, but feedback that is never checked cannot help the teacher or the learners.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Reviewing the records is right, but arranging extra assessments to reach a passing grade manages the complaint rather than the learning gap.
• D (3 points, Relational). This validates the feedback before acting on it and turns it into support for learners and teacher, which is what using validated feedback means.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 3.3.2 asks the school head to use validated feedback from parents and others to help teachers improve, and validation comes before action. EDCOM II’s Final Report finds that promotion rates used as headline metrics pressure principals to discourage failing marks and that teachers are confronted by parents when they assign them, and it calls for performance systems that reward truthful reporting and effective remediation. The option that arranges make-up assessments for a passing grade reviews the records but resolves the complaint instead of the learners’ reading gap.

Indicator 3.3.2: Use validated feedback obtained from learners, parents and other stakeholders to help teachers improve their performance.

Sources: EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). Aiming at the milestone is right, but a jump from 5 to 75 percent in one year is not achievable, and a target that cannot be met guides nothing.
• B (3 points, Relational). This sets a target that is achievable from the baseline, challenging against the milestone, and measurable with an instrument that covers every learner.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). Grade 1 reading is where the gap is widest; setting no target abandons the learners the plan should serve.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). A mean from six sampled learners moves by chance; a five-point target on it is neither achievable by design nor a measure of Grade 1 reading.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to set achievable and challenging learning outcomes. The data reports show 5.3 percent of Grade 1 learners reading at grade level and 55 percent at the lowest level in the assessed schools, and EDCOM II’s National Education Plan 2035 sets the end-of-year share of Key Stage 1 learners at grade level at 75 percent by 2028 from 47.74 percent. The option that adopts the 2028 milestone as this year’s target is challenging but not achievable, and so cannot guide the year’s work.

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

Sources: NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Blaming the sampled learners misreads sampling and asks to manipulate who is tested, which the school head has no authority to do.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Review classes respond to the request, but they are aimed at the test rather than at the learners’ identified needs.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Targeting subjects and the next cohort is organized, but it treats a chance-sized change in a sampled mean as the diagnosis.
• D (3 points, Relational). This reads the outcome data correctly and builds the intervention on the evidence that can actually locate the learning gaps.

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, which requires knowing what the outcome data can show. The data reports estimate the 95 percent margin of error of a six-learner Grade 6 mean at about six points, and DepEd’s technical notes caution that difficulty differs by year, so a seven-point change between two such means is within noise. The option that targets the subjects with the largest drop is organized but treats a statistical artifact as the diagnosis.

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

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

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This reads the transmuted grade for what it is and points to the assessment tools that show mastery, which is the understanding the indicator asks for.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Counting passers is reporting, not assessment; the grade’s meaning for the learner is left unexamined.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). The table converts low initial grades into passing marks; reading a 75 as mastery is the misconception that masks learning gaps.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Verifying the table was applied is a records check; it does not tell the school head whether the learner has mastered anything.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.5.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand assessment tools and the utilization of results. EDCOM II’s Final Report reproduces the transmutation table of DepEd Order No. 008, s. 2015, under which an initial grade of 60.00 to 61.59 becomes 75, and finds that it allows learners far below proficiency thresholds to appear to have met minimum requirements, masking learning gaps; it recommends phasing the table out. The option that verifies correct application of the table performs a legitimate check but does not connect the grade to what the learner can do.

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

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

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This provides the technical assistance the indicator describes: what each tool measures, and how to use the one that guides instruction.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Re-screening can be useful, but choosing the result that matches the division confuses agreement with accuracy.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). Altering screen results to match a test falsifies the record that decides which learners get help.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Declaring one result official leaves the teachers with no guidance on using either tool for their learners.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 3.5.2 asks the school head to assist teachers in using assessment tools and results consistent with curriculum requirements. The data reports find that the reading screen and the Grade 3 assessment correlate at only 0.06 across the same schools, that they are different instruments given to different cohorts, and that the screen is a classroom tool for deciding which learners need what while the test is for division-level comparison. The option that re-screens and keeps the closer result adds a check but misunderstands why the instruments differ.

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: NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). Fair use of six bowls is sensible, but it accepts a ratio the school could halve by repair.
• B (3 points, Relational). This acts on what the school controls now and addresses hygiene as well as access, which is what managing a healthy environment means.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). Reporting broken bowls as functional is a false record and hides a health risk from the division.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). A new building may be justified, but the quickest improvement, repairing four bowls, is left to the division’s timeline.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 3.6.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand managing a learner-friendly, inclusive and healthy environment. The WASH data show 27.5 learners per functional toilet bowl nationally, 11.1 percent of bowls non-functional, and 3.3 functional handwashing facilities per 100 learners, and they note that a school’s ratio can be improved by repairing the bowls it has. The option that requests a new building reads the ratio correctly but leaves the fastest and cheapest remedy, repair, unused.

Indicator 3.6.1: Demonstrate understanding of managing a learner-friendly, inclusive and healthy learning environment.

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

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). Study and training are useful, but covering every domain again ignores what the report identified and sets no goal.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). The level does make you a prospective candidate, but a developmental report that is filed rather than used is wasted.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). DepEd warns that it is not affiliated with anyone claiming access to examination content and that attempts to obtain it may bring administrative action.
• D (3 points, Relational). This is self-assessment against the standards, with goals and the coaching the NASH memorandum itself recommends.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.1.1 asks the aspiring school head to conduct self-assessment of development needs using the PPSSH. DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025 describes the NASH as a developmental tool, provides an Individual Development Report, and strongly encourages coaching and mentoring with experienced principals; its item 14 warns against anyone claiming access to the examination’s content. The option that re-reads every domain and attends any training shows diligence but does not use the report to target the one domain that needs work.

Indicator 4.1.1: Conduct self-assessment of personal and professional development needs using the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads.

Sources: DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). Recording the rise is reporting, not reflection; it asks nothing about what the year’s practice did for learners.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Discarding the instrument that covers every learner because it disagrees with a six-learner mean removes the school’s best evidence.
• C (3 points, Relational). This reflects on the right evidence and turns the uncomfortable result into a question about practice, which is how reflection improves it.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Looking for an explanation is reflective, but crediting a chance-sized rise and doubting the fuller measure reverses the weight of the evidence.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.2.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand how professional reflection improves practice, and reflection needs evidence that can show change. The data reports give a six-learner Grade 6 mean a margin of error of about six points, so a four-point rise is within chance, while the reading screen covers every learner and is the measure the National Education Plan’s targets use. The option that credits the program and doubts the screen reflects, but on the weaker evidence.

Indicator 4.2.1: Demonstrate understanding of how professional reflection and learning can be used in improving practice.

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

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Waiting to be ready misreads networks as a reward for competence rather than a means of acquiring it.
• B (3 points, Relational). This seeks the network most likely to improve practice and contributes to it, which is what the indicator asks of an aspiring or new school head.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). A conference is a network of a kind, but it cannot compare your school with the ones that resemble it.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Reading the profiles has value, but a network improves practice through exchange, and the school’s own profile is never shared.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.3.1 asks the school head to seek opportunities to improve practice through professional networks. The data reports find that between-division differences explain about a quarter of the variation in assessment means and advise benchmarking within the division because a regional comparison tells you less than the school next door; EDCOM II’s Final Report asks NEAP to expand professional learning communities for school heads. The option that joins online but never attends keeps a connection but forgoes the exchange that makes a network developmental.

Indicator 4.3.1: Seek opportunities to improve one’s practice as a school leader through professional networks.

Sources: NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This connects the system’s purpose, improvement, to objectives that can show it, within the division’s authority to contextualize the form.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Adding a reading target is a step, but keeping promotion-rate targets as the headline preserves the incentive the teachers describe.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). Discouraging failing marks to protect a rate is the mass-promotion practice EDCOM II documents, and it falsifies what learners have learned.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Means of verification are required, but compiling evidence for targets that do not measure improvement is compliance, not performance management.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand how the performance management system improves personnel and office performance. EDCOM II’s Final Report finds that the OPCR for principals lacks standardization and that promotion, completion and dropout rates used as headline metrics pressure principals to maintain high promotion rates, and it calls for objectives that reward effective remediation and truthful reporting. The option that keeps the promotion targets and adds a reading target uses the form but leaves its purpose unconnected to learning.

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

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

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). A unilateral rating without discussion breaches the review’s process and treats a developmental tool as a punishment.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Honoring the agreed targets is fair, but deferring the reading evidence for a year leaves the learners and the teacher’s practice unchanged now.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Collecting the screen results is one step, but a review that stops at the file does not help the teacher improve.
• D (3 points, Relational). This implements the system as a development process with the teacher, grounded in evidence and ending in an agreed plan.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 4.4.2 asks the school head to implement the performance management system with a team to support personnel and improve performance. EDCOM II’s Final Report finds that the current RPMS and OPCRF reward promotion statistics and asks that they be realigned so indicators reward effective remediation and truthful reporting, with the revised instruments scheduled for 2027 onward; a school head can already set the review conversation on learning evidence. The option that rates as proposed and defers reading outcomes keeps faith with the agreed targets but leaves the gap for another year.

Indicator 4.4.2: Implement the performance management system with a team to support the career advancement of school personnel, and to improve office performance.

Sources: EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Development is the school head’s responsibility now; waiting for an item leaves the Grade 1 teachers and their learners without support.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). A needs survey is a tool, but the need is already visible in the screen; starting from preferences delays the response.
• C (3 points, Relational). This connects development to an identified performance gap and to the forms that address it in the school, which is the understanding the indicator asks for.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Training everyone is inclusive, but a general program is not tied to the gap the data show or to the teachers who face it.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.5.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand professional development that addresses performance gaps among personnel. The personnel data show 91 percent of elementary positions at Teacher I to III and master teachers at 7.6 percent of nationally funded positions, and the reading data put 55 percent of Grade 1 learners at the lowest level; EDCOM II’s Final Report asks that in-service training emphasize early-grade literacy and numeracy. The option that sends everyone to the annual program provides development but not the kind the gap requires.

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

Sources: NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Canceling mandated in-service training removes the development the gaps call for and does not make the remedial classes better taught.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Equal blocks feel fair, but the training is not prioritized by the gaps and reflections alone do not carry it into practice.
• C (3 points, Relational). This implements development that addresses the identified gaps, applies it in classrooms, and still honors the teachers’ request where it serves learning.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Ownership matters, but choosing the session by the arrival of devices leaves the numeracy and reading gaps unaddressed.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 4.5.2 asks the school head to implement professional development that addresses performance gaps. The data reports find Numeracy the weakest Grade 3 component in every region and Grade 1 the widest reading gap, and find computers per learner unassociated with results; EDCOM II’s Final Report asks that in-service training be responsive to grade-level and developmental needs, with emphasis on early-grade literacy and numeracy. The option that runs all three sessions equally honors requests but does not prioritize by the evidence or build in classroom application.

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

Sources: NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; Executive Order No. 174, s. 2022; Republic Act No. 12288.

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). An Assistant School Head Designate needs an Official Designation Order signed by the schools division superintendent; the school head cannot make the designation by memorandum.
• B (3 points, Relational). This identifies potential against the standards the roles require and connects it to development, which is what the indicator asks.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Posting the announcement informs, but it identifies no one and develops no one.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Nominating and asking are steps, but seniority is not potential, and nothing prepares anyone for what the assessment measures.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.6.1 asks the aspiring school head to identify strengths, capabilities and potentials of individuals for leadership roles. DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025 names head teachers, assistant school principals and teachers-in-charge who meet the qualification standards as NASH takers and ties first appointment to a pass, and EDCOM II’s Final Report plans 22,124 new principal items from 2026 to 2028 while asking for succession planning linked to the career progression system. The option that nominates by seniority acts but identifies potential by the wrong measure and prepares no one.

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

Sources: DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025; EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2025, Encl. No. 1, Sec. 36(d).

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). The career line point is right, but the workload order transferred the tasks to school heads and non-teaching staff, not back to teachers when staff are short.
• B (3 points, Relational). This states what each issuance gives teachers and what the school head must do to make it real, which is the knowledge of welfare provisions the indicator asks for.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). The removal is correctly understood, but the order shares the tasks with non-teaching personnel; absorbing everything personally is neither required nor sustainable.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). A DepEd order in force binds the school; waiting for division guidelines to apply it keeps teachers on tasks the policy removed.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.7.1 asks the aspiring school head to know the laws and issuances on personnel’s rights, privileges and benefits. EDCOM II’s Final Report records the passage of Republic Act No. 12288 on September 12, 2025, institutionalizing the Expanded Career Progression System of Executive Order No. 174, s. 2022, with its two career lines, Classroom Teaching and School Administration (EO 174, Secs. 2 and 3; RA 12288, Sec. 7), and DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024, which transferred administrative tasks from teachers to school heads and non-teaching personnel. The option that keeps assigning tasks when staff are short understands the career lines but misreads the workload order.

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

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Means from a handful of sampled learners cannot rank sections; recognition on that basis is arbitrary and teaches the faculty to chase noise.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Announcing the new criterion is good, but equal recognition tells the faculty that a promotion rate without evidence counts the same as documented gains.
• C (3 points, Relational). This rewards exemplary performance on evidence, makes the criteria transparent, and recognizes the stakeholders who supported it.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). A certificate recognizes the teacher, but quietly, and the program’s criteria go on rewarding the wrong things.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.8.1 asks the aspiring school head to reward and recognize learners, personnel and stakeholders for exemplary performance and support. EDCOM II’s Final Report finds that performance systems have historically rewarded high pass rates rather than accurate reporting of learning gaps and asks that they reward effective remediation and truthful reporting; the data reports show why sampled assessment means cannot rank sections. The option that recognizes both teachers equally adds a future criterion but rewards an undocumented rate now.

Indicator 4.8.1: Reward and recognize learners, school personnel and other stakeholders for exemplary performance and/ or support.

Sources: EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). The municipality can help, but a repair done outside the division’s programming and before it is informed bypasses the office accountable for the building.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Facilities involve the LGU by law; refusing to engage other authorities leaves learners in an unrepaired building.
• C (3 points, Relational). This deals with each authority in its proper role and connects them so that the repair moves, which is the skill the indicator describes.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). A written request is one correct step, but waiting on it alone leaves two willing partners unused.

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 and stakeholders to support learners. EDCOM II’s Final Report finds that 45 divisions lack engineers, that division engineers’ roles are set by DepEd Order No. 018, s. 2023, that the Local Government Code assigns school buildings to LGUs while DepEd also mandates them, and it supports LGU counterpart construction. The option that has the municipality repair the building first gets help but sidesteps the division’s accountability and programming.

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

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). Explaining the records is right, but escalating a threat to the legal unit before any conversation hardens the conflict and leaves the child’s reading unaddressed.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Trading a grade for attendance to end a complaint falsifies the learner’s record and is the inducement no school head may offer.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). The teacher is a party to the conflict; sending the parent back to them abdicates the school head’s role in the relationship.
• D (3 points, Relational). This builds the relationship around the child’s actual need, with evidence and shared responsibility, and protects teacher and parent by documenting it.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 5.1.2 asks the school head to build constructive relationships with parents to foster a supportive environment for learners. EDCOM II’s Final Report records teachers being confronted or threatened by parents when they assign failing marks, with the child protection policy sometimes used adversarially, and finds that parental engagement reduces the odds of low performance. The option that explains and refers to the legal unit protects the teacher but treats the parent as an adversary and leaves the remediation unplanned.

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

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

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). Accounting to the assembly is right, but defining the association by fund-raising ignores the engagement the evidence links to learning.
• B (3 points, Relational). This places the association where the evidence and the standards put it, on engagement, and keeps its management transparent.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). The assembly is one function, but reporting to parents is not the association’s purpose.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). An association’s funds are the association’s, managed by its officers under its guidelines; discretionary use by the school head breaches transparency and accountability.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.2.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand the policies on managing school organizations such as parent-teacher associations in support of institutional goals. The ICT data show PTAs paid for 0.1 percent of academic computers against 32.7 percent from LGUs and the Special Education Fund, and EDCOM II’s Final Report cites SEA-PLM evidence that parental engagement independently reduces the risk of low performance. The option that casts the association as a fund-raiser gets accountability right but misplaces its contribution.

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: NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). A referral helps, but turning the family away until it is done keeps the child out of school.
• B (3 points, Relational). This removes the barrier, keeps the learner in school meanwhile, and makes the school’s practice responsive to the learners’ cultures and languages.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Enrolling and referring are right, but culture-responsive materials and language support are the school’s practice, not only the division’s.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). Refusing enrollment for a missing document excludes the learners inclusion exists to protect, contrary to the standards’ inclusivity principle.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.3.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand inclusive practices such as culture responsiveness. The learner data show Indigenous Peoples learners at 9.3 percent nationally and 71.9 percent in CAR, and EDCOM II’s Final Report reports that about 20 percent of Muslim ethnic groups and 10 percent of IPs lack birth registration, restricting enrollment, and recommends culturally responsive materials and coordination with the PSA and LGUs to resolve documentation barriers. The option that enrolls and refers but leaves language and materials to the division gets access right but not responsiveness.

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: NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Excusing one group from reading and sending another away denies both the education the school exists to provide.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Respect is necessary, but a schedule that removes 40 learners from reading is exclusion by timetable.
• C (3 points, Relational). This protects every learner’s access to reading, routes the two learners to the support system, and makes inclusion a faculty practice.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Protecting reading and requesting a teacher are right, but without screening and referral the request rests on nothing and the learners wait.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 5.3.2 asks the school head to exhibit inclusive practices such as culture responsiveness and health awareness. The learner data show ALIVE learners at 18.2 percent of BARMM’s learners, and EDCOM II’s Final Report finds inclusive learning resource centers under Republic Act No. 11650 unevenly staffed and calls for standardized screening, teacher training on identification and referral, and a multi-tiered system of support. The option that protects reading and requests a teacher without screening does several right things but skips the referral that the support depends on.

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: NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). A rank built on six sampled learners is not a result; presenting it as one misinforms parents and sets a meaningless target.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Explaining the tests helps, but leading with sampled means and relegating the full-coverage screen reverses the weight of the evidence.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Avoiding confusion is a fair aim, but withholding results parents will hear about elsewhere is not communication.
• D (3 points, Relational). This communicates each number with its base and its limits and leads with the evidence that covers every learner, which is competent written communication of data.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to demonstrate competent skills in writing for parents and stakeholders, and data communication is part of that competence. The data reports set three rules for honest communication of school data: state the base, state the uncertainty, and state what the number cannot show, and they estimate a six-learner Grade 6 mean’s margin at about six points. The option that reports the means with explanations and attaches the screen informs but orders the evidence by status rather than by what it shows.

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

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This communicates through the school’s own platforms, explains the data honestly, and turns the moment into engagement with parents.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Identifying the tested learners’ sections exposes children to blame and breaches the confidentiality a school head owes them.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Sharing the gains is right, but ignoring the ranking leaves the parents’ actual question unanswered and the teachers to carry it.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Requesting removal is a reaction, not communication; parents at the gate learn nothing from it.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 5.4.2 asks the school head to communicate effectively with parents and stakeholders through positive use of communication platforms. The data reports show that a Grade 6 mean from five sampled learners carries a margin of about seven points and that raw school means cannot rank schools, and they advise reporting a school’s reading profile rather than a rank. The option that posts the gains but ignores the ranking uses the platform well but avoids the question parents are asking.

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

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Charging households shifts a public cost to families and excludes the poorest learners, contrary to the inclusivity the standards require.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). An informal request may work, but it bypasses the board that governs the fund and leaves the arrangement undocumented.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Materials help, but the need identified is a teacher, and the fund can cover one.
• D (3 points, Relational). This involves the community’s institutions with evidence and a proven model, and brings the barangay in where attendance is decided.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.5.1 asks the aspiring school head to involve the community and authorities in school programs to gain support for learner development. EDCOM II’s Final Report describes Pasay City’s two-decade partnership with its local government to deploy dedicated reading teachers and run daily level-based sessions, with almost all flagged non-readers progressing at least one level, and finds Special Education Fund resources widely unspent. The option that asks the mayor informally gains a tutor but outside the board’s process and without the barangay’s role.

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: EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). Removing the sales condition helps, but the arrangement still rests on a vendor’s goodwill and defers the partnership that would last.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). The national program is a legitimate route, but waiting alone leaves a willing local partner unused.
• C (3 points, Relational). This initiates a partnership that fits the need, uses both local and national programs, and ties the connection to instruction.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). Granting a vendor commercial access to learners on campus exploits children for a service; the harm outweighs the connection.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 5.5.2 asks the school head to initiate partnerships with the community and authorities to strengthen support for learners. The data reports find internet access the one input with a measurable association with results, reaching 78 percent of public schools and 90 percent of learners, and name an LGU line, a DICT free Wi-Fi site or a DepEd connectivity program as the routes a school head can pursue; EDCOM II’s Top 20 priorities include equitable connectivity. The option that accepts the vendor without sales gets a connection but not a partnership.

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: NASH Reviewer, Philippine basic education in numbers (DepEd public datasets, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26); EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), January 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). Using the survey is right, but handing the revision to one designate and reporting back later removes the learners from the decision they asked to join.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Filing the survey and reminding teachers are steps, but the organization’s offer to help is left unused.
• C (3 points, Relational). This manages the learner organization as a partner in a school decision, through the body the policy assigns, with a way to know whether it worked.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). Suppressing learner evidence to avoid complaints puts the school’s image above learners’ safety.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 5.2.2 asks the school head to manage learner organizations by applying the relevant policies to support institutional goals. EDCOM II’s Final Report cites PISA evidence that 43 percent of girls and 53 percent of boys report being bullied at least a few times a month and notes the revised rules of Republic Act No. 10627 that strengthen the anti-bullying framework, while the PPSSH’s learner voice strand expects learners’ views to inform decisions. The option that lets the guidance designate revise the measures uses the survey but excludes the learner organization from the work it offered to do.

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