# PPSSH Domain 3: Teaching and Learning With DepEd Data

PPSSH Domain 3 for aspiring school heads, read through DepEd's NAT, ELLNA and CRLA results, where no regional mean reaches 75, and EDCOM II's reforms.

This is the Markdown copy of [PPSSH Domain 3: Teaching and Learning With DepEd Data](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-3-teaching-and-learning), an article on the NASH Reviewer Blog by Mark Anthony Llego, published Oct 25, 2026, updated Nov 4, 2026. Topics: Aspiring school heads, PPSSH. NASH Reviewer is an independent practice platform not affiliated with DepEd, BHROD, or NEAP.

Domain 3 of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), Focusing on Teaching and Learning, has eight strands. For teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH, formerly the NQESH), each one at Career Stage 1 can be read through the Department of Education's (DepEd) public assessment results, in which no regional subject mean reaches the 75-point proficiency mark.

Domain 3 is the domain the other four exist for. The PPSSH booklet, adopted by [DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2020/09/07/september-7-2020-do-024-s-2020-national-adoption-and-implementation-of-the-philippine-professional-standards-for-school-heads/), says school heads in this domain "are equipped with knowledge, skills, and attitudes in providing technical assistance on instruction that relates to curriculum, practice, and performance". It says they "are committed in providing instructional leadership towards improving competence among teachers and outcomes among learners".

The Final Report of the Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II) recommends that the principal's Office Performance Commitment and Review Form (OPCRF) prioritize "classroom observation, teacher coaching, and curriculum implementation". That is a request that this domain take up most of a school head's week.

The assessment data cover the five regions DepEd has released. They are the Grade 3 Early Language, Literacy, and Numeracy Assessment (ELLNA) and the Grade 6 National Achievement Test (NAT) of SY 2023-2024, and the Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) of SY 2025-2026. The strand sections below also draw on the analysis of school inputs and learning outcomes in this series, and on EDCOM II's findings on assessment, mass promotion, learning recovery and instructional time.

## Key findings

- **No regional subject mean reaches the 75-point proficiency mark.** The test-taker-weighted Grade 3 ELLNA mean across assessed schools is 63.2, and the Grade 6 NAT mean is 60.3. Numeracy is the weakest ELLNA component in every region (53.6 overall), and Science is the weakest NAT subject (53.8).
- **The gap starts with early reading.** On the CRLA, 5.3% of Grade 1 learners read at grade level in the mother tongue, and 55.0% are at the lowest level. By Grade 3, about 24% are at grade level and one in six is still low emerging.
- **The instruments do not agree, and that disagreement is itself information.** The CRLA share at grade level correlates at 0.06 with the ELLNA mean in the same schools, while the ELLNA and NAT correlate at 0.62. EDCOM II finds "no conceptual alignment across assessments" nationally.
- **Mass promotion is a performance-management problem.** EDCOM II traces it to the transmutation table of [DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2015/04/01/do-8-s-2015-policy-guidelines-on-classroom-assessment-for-the-k-to-12-basic-education-program/), which turns an initial grade of 60 into 75. It also traces it to Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form (IPCRF) and OPCRF indicators that reward promotion rates.
- **Class organization matters more than equipment.** Within a division, multigrade schools average about four points lower on the ELLNA and NAT. A higher pupil-teacher ratio goes with fewer early readers. Computers per learner show no association with any result.

## The eight strands of Domain 3 at Career Stage 1

| Strand | Career Stage 1 indicator |
|---|---|
| 3.1 School-based review, contextualization and implementation of learning standards | 3.1.1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of school-based review, contextualization and implementation of learning standards. |
| 3.2 Teaching standards and pedagogies | 3.2.1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of teaching standards and pedagogies within and across learning areas to provide technical assistance to teachers to improve their teaching practice. |
| 3.3 Teacher performance feedback | 3.3.1 Demonstrate understanding of the use of feedback obtained from learners, parents and other stakeholders to help teachers improve their performance. |
| 3.4 Learner achievement and other performance indicators | 3.4.1 Set achievable and challenging learning outcomes to support learner achievement and the attainment of other performance indicators. |
| 3.5 Learning assessment | 3.5.1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of learning assessment tools, strategies and utilization of results consistent with curriculum requirements. |
| 3.6 Learning environment | 3.6.1 Demonstrate understanding of managing a learner-friendly, inclusive and healthy learning environment. |
| 3.7 Career awareness and opportunities | 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. |
| 3.8 Learner discipline | 3.8.1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of existing national and local policies related to learner discipline. |

Indicator 3.4.1 is unusual: it asks the aspiring school head to *set* outcomes, not only to know about them. It is the Career Stage 1 indicator most directly tested by data.

## 3.1 Review and contextualization of learning standards

Contextualizing learning standards means knowing which standards apply, in which language, for which learners. The policy context EDCOM II describes is changing. The MATATAG curriculum is being rolled out, and EDCOM II recommends using the rollout "to rationalize the number of competencies per grade and learning area" and to match time allocations to single-shift and multi-shift schools. Republic Act No. 12027 ended compulsory mother-tongue instruction. EDCOM II asks for "robust language mapping, clear school-level language plans, and bridging programs" from the first language to Filipino and English. It asks that these be reviewed for their effect on early reading and on linguistic-minority learners.

The data show why the language plan is a school-level decision. In the ELLNA, schools using Waray as the language of instruction score highest (67.9) and Pangasinan schools score lowest (55.7). Kapampangan (58.6) and Tagalog (62.5) schools are below the pooled mean. In the CRLA two years later, the order is almost reversed: Kapampangan schools have the highest share at grade level (19.4%) and Waray schools the lowest (12.0%). CAR reads better in English (25.6% at grade level in Grade 3) than in the mother tongue (16.9%). A standard "contextualised" for a Waray school and one for a Kapampangan school are not the same document.

| Language of instruction       |   Schools |   Test-takers | At grade level (95% CI)   |
|:------------------------------|----------:|--------------:|:--------------------------|
| Kapampangan                   |        83 |        14,335 | 19.4 (17.0–22.3)%         |
| Tagalog                       |     2,135 |       336,387 | 17.3 (16.7–18.0)%         |
| Sinugbuanong Binisaya/Cebuano |     1,352 |       112,527 | 14.8 (14.0–15.6)%         |
| Pangasinan/Pangasinense       |       157 |        25,511 | 14.6 (13.0–16.0)%         |
| Ilokano/Iloko                 |       940 |        57,298 | 14.0 (13.1–14.8)%         |
| Waray                         |     1,435 |        99,875 | 12.0 (11.2–12.8)%         |

## 3.2 Teaching standards and pedagogies

Technical assistance to teachers starts from the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST) and from knowing the faculty's composition. Of nationally funded positions, 91% of elementary and 92% of junior-high positions are Teacher I to III. Master teachers are 7.6% of nationally funded teachers, and 2.6% in BARMM, and 60.8% of senior-high positions are Teacher II. The [SY 2023-2024 teachers and school personnel report](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-teachers-school-personnel-data-sy-2023-2024) concludes that where master teachers are scarce, "instructional leadership falls on the school head".

The pedagogical factor with the clearest pattern in the data is class organization. Within the same division, a fully multigrade school averages about four ELLNA and NAT points below a fully monograde one. The direction of that difference holds in every region and in every alternative model. Two percent of public elementary learners are in multigrade classes, but 15.2% of public schools offer them, 39.7% in CAR and 33.1% in Region VIII. A school head of a multigrade school leads the configuration most consistently associated with lower results. That is exactly where the PPSSH strands on pedagogy and technical assistance apply.

![Two horizontal bar panels by region: the share of public elementary learners taught in multigrade classes, from 10 percent in CAR and 8.5 percent in Region VIII to near zero in NCR, Region III and Region IV-A; and the share of public schools offering multigrade classes, from 40 percent in CAR and 33 percent in Region VIII to under 1 percent in NCR.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/multigrade-by-region.HHGy_AMJ_ZKPVLj.webp)

*Figure 1. Multigrade teaching by region, public schools, SY 2023-24: the share of elementary learners in multigrade classes and the share of schools offering them. Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/deped-data/multigrade-by-region.png).*

Teachers who spoke to EDCOM II asked for three things in the Academic Recovery and Accessible Learning (ARAL) Program. They wanted "consistent training on teaching reading, access to structured learning resources aligned with CRLA profiles, and the ability to group learners by ability rather than teaching mixed level classes". Those are pedagogical decisions a school head can make.

## 3.3 Teacher performance feedback

Indicator 3.3.1 concerns feedback "obtained from learners, parents and other stakeholders". EDCOM II's account of how feedback currently works is its chapter on mass promotion. Teachers "describe strong institutional pressures to keep promotion rates high and retention rates low, because performance management systems and school reputations have historically rewarded high pass rates rather than accurate reporting of learning gaps". Failing a learner "triggers extensive administrative requirements, including documentation of multiple rounds of remediation and home visits". And "some teachers report being confronted or threatened by parents when they assign failing marks". Elsewhere, the report notes that the RPMS-PPST, the Results-based Performance Management System aligned with the PPST, rates teachers on all 37 PPST indicators over three years.

In EDCOM II's recommendations, feedback that improves teaching takes two forms. The first is classroom observation and coaching by the school head, which the revised OPCRF should prioritize. The second is the use of assessment results to change instruction, which the commission finds largely absent: teachers "view these assessments as compliance activities rather than tools that support classroom decision-making".

## 3.4 Learner achievement and other performance indicators

Setting "achievable and challenging learning outcomes" requires knowing the baseline and its uncertainty.

![Two grouped bar charts of test-taker-weighted mean scores by subject and region. NAT Grade 6: Region VIII leads every subject (Filipino 69.6, Mathematics 64.7, English 69.5, Science 60.2, Araling Panlipunan 68.6) and Region IX trails (Science 47.9, Mathematics 48.1). ELLNA Grade 3: Numeracy is lowest in every region, from 42.5 in CAR to 61.7 in Region VIII. A line marks the 75-point proficiency mark, which no regional subject mean reaches.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/subjects-by-region.DUejhMr5_Z60QFb.webp)

*Figure 2. Test-taker-weighted mean scores by subject and region: Grade 6 NAT and Grade 3 ELLNA, SY 2023-24. A line marks the 75-point proficiency mark. Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/deped-data/subjects-by-region.png).*

| Region      |   Schools |   Test-takers | Mean percentage score (95% CI)   |   Median school | Rank (95% interval)   |
|:------------|----------:|--------------:|:---------------------------------|----------------:|:----------------------|
| CAR         |       778 |         3,287 | 56.1 (55.0–57.2)                 |            57.5 | 4 (4–4)               |
| Region I    |     1,250 |        10,293 | 59.3 (58.2–60.3)                 |            60.4 | 2 (2–3)               |
| Region III  |     1,786 |        21,023 | 59.1 (58.2–60.0)                 |            59.3 | 3 (2–3)               |
| Region IX   |       795 |         4,916 | 53.9 (52.6–55.2)                 |            53.8 | 5 (5–5)               |
| Region VIII |     2,027 |        13,242 | 66.5 (65.6–67.4)                 |            69.8 | 1 (1–1)               |

Across the assessed schools, Region VIII leads both tests (69.9 on the ELLNA, 66.5 on the NAT) and Region IX trails (54.4 and 53.9). Division means run from 45.4 (Pagadian City) to 81.3 (Ilocos Norte) on the ELLNA. On the NAT, they run from 45.8 (Candon City) to 74.4 (Calbayog City). Between-division differences account for 36% of the variance in ELLNA school means.

On the NAT, 27% of test-takers attend a school whose mean is Low Proficient (25 to 49), and 54% attend a Nearly Proficient school (50 to 74). Another 18% attend a Proficient school (75 to 89), and 0.2% a Highly Proficient one. On the ELLNA the shares are 24%, 50%, 23% and 4%, and in Region IX the Low Proficient share is 46%.

| Region       | Not Proficient   | Low Proficient   | Nearly Proficient   | Proficient   | Highly Proficient   |
|:-------------|:-----------------|:-----------------|:--------------------|:-------------|:--------------------|
| CAR          | 0.1%             | 18.2%            | 66.8%               | 14.5%        | 0.4%                |
| Region I     | 0.0%             | 27.4%            | 54.6%               | 15.8%        | 2.3%                |
| Region III   | 0.0%             | 24.2%            | 50.0%               | 20.2%        | 5.6%                |
| Region IX    | 0.0%             | 46.3%            | 43.2%               | 10.3%        | 0.2%                |
| Region VIII  | 0.2%             | 12.2%            | 43.8%               | 38.8%        | 5.0%                |
| All assessed | 0.1%             | 23.9%            | 49.5%               | 22.5%        | 4.0%                |

The national figures EDCOM II reports show the same pattern at larger scale. Nationally, 69.5% of Grade 3 learners are non-proficient on the ELLNA. On the NAT, 19.56% of Grade 6, 0.74% of Grade 10 and 0.4% of Grade 12 learners are proficient. At the end of SY 2024-2025, 48.76% of Key Stage 1 learners were not reading at grade level.

"Achievable and challenging" has a published meaning. The National Education Plan sets the end-of-year CRLA share of Key Stage 1 learners at grade level at 75% by 2028, 90% by 2031 and 95% by 2035, from a baseline of 47.74%. It sets the Rapid Mathematics Assessment (RMA) numeracy share at 65%, 75% and 85%, from 40.49%. EDCOM II cites Norzagaray, Bulacan, where 60.73% of learners read at grade level, as evidence that the 2028 figure is reachable.

A school's targets should be set against its own CRLA profile and these national milestones. The measure should be one with enough learners to change reliably: the end-of-year CRLA, not a NAT school mean from six sampled learners.

![Scatter plot of raw Grade 6 NAT school means against their empirical-Bayes shrunk values, colored by the number of test-takers. Schools with few test-takers move toward their division mean.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/nat-shrinkage.pYSJ8D5s_1BO9zc.webp)

*Figure 3. Raw Grade 6 NAT school means against their shrunk values, colored by the number of test-takers. Schools with few test-takers move toward their division mean. Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/deped-data/nat-shrinkage.png).*

## 3.5 Learning assessment

Indicator 3.5.1 asks for knowledge of assessment "tools, strategies and utilization of results". In EDCOM II's count, the tools are 14, against an OECD average of four. Nationally there are the ELLNA at Grade 3, the NAT at Grades 6, 10 and 12, the National Career Assessment Examination (NCAE), the A&E test and the PEPT. In classrooms there are the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI), the CRLA, the RMA, the EGRA, the EGMA and the ANA.

EDCOM II lists several problems. None of the tools is linked to another. ELLNA item difficulty shifted between 2018 and 2022 without equating. The 2022 NAT Grade 6 had many items that were too easy, too hard or non-discriminating under an item-response analysis. Results have arrived two to three years late, and the Bureau of Education Assessment has too few psychometricians.

EDCOM II's recommendations include an independent assessment body, key-stage tests delivered by computer, and a unified framework linking classroom and national assessments. They also include refinement of the Phil-IRI, CRLA and RMA, and equity reporting for Last Mile, Indigenous Peoples (IP), Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) and Arabic Language and Islamic Values Education (ALIVE) learners. Results would be released within the school year through Project BUKAS. [PISA, TIMSS, SEA-PLM and the NAT](https://nash.com.ph/blog/pisa-timss-sea-plm-nat-edcom-ii) covers these findings and recommendations in depth, and what DepEd has done since.

The use of results that EDCOM II criticizes most is the transmutation table:

| Initial grade | Transmuted grade |
|---|---|
| 100 | 100 |
| 92.00 to 93.59 | 95 |
| 84.00 to 85.59 | 90 |
| 76.00 to 77.59 | 85 |
| 68.00 to 69.59 | 80 |
| 60.00 to 61.59 | 75 |
| 40.00 to 43.99 | 70 |
| 20.00 to 23.99 | 65 |
| 0 to 3.99 | 60 |

Source: DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015, as reproduced in the EDCOM II Final Report. The report calls for the table to be phased out and replaced with a criterion-referenced approach. It says the table "allows learners who perform far below proficiency thresholds to appear as if they have met minimum requirements".

The public files add a lesson about what the instruments measure. The CRLA is a teacher-administered screen that places each learner at one of five levels in each language. The ELLNA and NAT are multiple-choice tests reported as school mean percentage scores. In the same schools, the CRLA share at grade level and the ELLNA mean correlate at 0.06. The [CRLA reading levels report for SY 2025-2026](https://nash.com.ph/blog/crla-results-sy-2025-2026) gives three explanations the files cannot separate: different instruments, different cohorts two years apart, and an undocumented school-level summary. It also gives the conclusion a school head should draw. Use the CRLA to decide which learners need what, and use the ELLNA and NAT at division level.

![Bar chart of CRLA reading levels in SY 2025-26 by grade and language of assessment: the share at grade level rises from 5 percent in Grade 1 Mother Tongue to 25 percent in Grade 3 Mother Tongue, while the share at the low emerging level falls from 55 percent to 13 percent.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/crla-by-grade-and-language.p2kH_-yn_25JNE0.webp)

*Figure 4. CRLA reading levels by grade and language of assessment, SY 2025-26. Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/deped-data/crla-by-grade-and-language.png).*

| Grade and language     |   Schools |   Test-takers | At grade level (95% CI)   | Low emerging (95% CI)   |
|:-----------------------|----------:|--------------:|:--------------------------|:------------------------|
| Grade 1, Mother Tongue |     6,090 |       199,903 | 5.3 (5.0–5.7)%            | 55.0 (54.2–55.9)%       |
| Grade 2, Mother Tongue |     6,060 |       221,487 | 17.3 (16.7–17.9)%         | 26.7 (26.1–27.4)%       |
| Grade 2, Filipino      |     6,096 |       220,074 | 17.2 (16.6–17.8)%         | 25.5 (24.9–26.1)%       |
| Grade 3, Mother Tongue |     5,920 |       227,945 | 24.6 (23.9–25.4)%         | 16.1 (15.6–16.6)%       |
| Grade 3, Filipino      |     6,056 |       232,270 | 22.7 (22.0–23.4)%         | 15.7 (15.2–16.1)%       |
| Grade 3, English       |     5,918 |       227,704 | 23.3 (22.7–24.0)%         | 13.4 (12.9–13.9)%       |

## 3.6 Learning environment

A "learner-friendly, inclusive and healthy" environment is measurable. In the SY 2023-2024 files, 836,572 functional toilet bowls serve 23.2 million public-school learners. That is 27.5 learners per bowl nationally and 50.5 in BARMM. Across the country, 1,360 schools (2.8%) report no functional toilet bowl, and in BARMM the share is 19.1% of schools. Of all bowls, 11.1% are non-functional. There are 3.3 functional handwashing facilities per 100 learners, and 94.7% of the elementary ones have soap.

Water and electricity reach 98% of learners. Internet reaches 90% of learners but only 78% of schools, because the unconnected schools are small and rural. Connectivity is the one input with a measurable association with results.

Crowding is the environmental variable with the strongest evidence. The facilities file gives 35.1 learners per instructional room nationally and 55.1 in NCR. EDCOM II reports 2,233 schools on double or triple shifts. It cites evidence from the Southeast Asia Primary Learning Metrics (SEA-PLM) 2025 that learners in overcrowded classrooms score significantly lower in reading and mathematics. Safety is the other variable: in SEA-PLM 2024, the Philippine figure for head teachers reporting bullying among pupils at least once a month was 50%. The [SY 2023-2024 report on water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and utilities](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-wash-data-sy-2023-2024) and the [SY 2023-2024 school facilities report](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-classroom-school-building-data-sy-2023-2024) have the regional detail.

## 3.7 Career awareness and opportunities

The senior high school data describe the choices learners are making. Technical-Vocational-Livelihood (TVL) remains the largest track, peaking at 1.22 million in SY 2023-2024. Humanities and Social Sciences (HUMSS) grew from 0.32 million to 1.01 million, and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) from 0.40 to 0.70 million. The General Academic Strand (GAS) and Accountancy, Business and Management (ABM) have declined since SY 2022-2023. The Strengthened Senior High School tracks appear in SY 2025-2026 with 0.27 million.

EDCOM II's Key Priority Area 3 asks for teacher subject-specialization mismatch to be addressed, the senior high school TechPro program improved, and "school-to-employment pathways" institutionalized with industry coordination. Career advice during the Grade 9 NCAE conversation is more useful when the school head knows which strands the division's senior high schools can staff.

![Line chart of senior high school enrollment by track and strand from SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26, all sectors. TVL is largest throughout, peaking at 1.22 million in SY 2023-24; HUMSS grows from 0.32 million to 1.01 million; STEM from 0.40 to 0.70 million; GAS and ABM decline after SY 2022-23; the Strengthened SHS tracks appear in SY 2025-26 with 0.27 million.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/shs-strands.Bc9b5Nhn_1Fdb2H.webp)

*Figure 5. Senior high school enrollment by track and strand, all sectors, SY 2017-18 to SY 2025-26. Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/deped-data/shs-strands.png).*

## 3.8 Learner discipline

Indicator 3.8.1 asks for knowledge of discipline policy. EDCOM II discusses two policies. The first is the Child Protection Policy, which teachers told the Commission is sometimes "used in adversarial ways" when they assign failing marks or require remediation. The second is the revised Implementing Rules of Republic Act No. 10627, the Anti-Bullying Act, which the report says "significantly strengthened the policy framework".

The context is the SEA-PLM 2024 finding that the Philippine figure for head teachers reporting bullying among pupils at least once a month was 50%, down from 63% in 2019. School heads also report frequent violence and harassment, and there is a long-standing shortage of guidance counselors. A discipline policy a school head knows well protects learners and teachers at the same time. [RA 12080, Bullying and School Mental Health](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-mental-health-bullying-ra-12080-edcom-ii) covers EDCOM II's findings on bullying, the revised Anti-Bullying IRR and what RA 12080 requires of schools.

Discipline also has legal limits. For the Supreme Court cases on school heads and teachers charged with child abuse, harassment or hazing, see [Harassment, Child Abuse and Hazing: Cases on School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-harassment-child-abuse-hazing-cases); for liability when a pupil is injured, see [Is a Principal Liable When a Pupil Is Injured?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-liability-pupil-injury).

## How the NASH may test Domain 3

A situational item might give a school's ELLNA component means, its CRLA profile by grade, its multigrade status and its promotion rate, and ask for an instructional plan. A relational answer starts with Numeracy, the weakest component, and Grade 1, where the CRLA gap is widest. It groups learners by CRLA level for ARAL rather than by section, and assigns the master teacher to coach the Grade 1 to 3 teachers. It sets an end-of-year CRLA target against the 75% milestone. It addresses the promotion rate by replacing the incentive, not by instructing teachers to pass learners. An extended abstract answer explains why the same plan in a monograde city school on double shifts would spend its first effort on time on task. It also explains why neither school should be judged by its NAT mean.

## Before you apply

1. Read your prospective school's CRLA profile by grade and language, and its ELLNA and NAT means with the number of test-takers behind them.
2. Know the transmutation table and EDCOM II's case against it. Know what DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015 requires today.
3. Know the ARAL Program's legal basis (Republic Act No. 12028) and what EDCOM II found works: short, structured, diagnostic-led remediation with protected time.
4. Be able to say in one sentence why a NAT school mean from six learners cannot rank a school and a CRLA profile from 60 learners can guide a teacher.

## Frequently asked questions

### What is PPSSH Domain 3, Focusing on Teaching and Learning?

PPSSH Domain 3, Focusing on Teaching and Learning, has eight strands: learning standards, teaching standards and pedagogies, teacher performance feedback, learner achievement, learning assessment, the learning environment, career awareness and opportunities, and learner discipline. Career Stage 1 asks aspiring school heads to understand each strand and to set achievable and challenging learning outcomes.

### What do DepEd's public NAT, ELLNA and CRLA files show?

In the five released regions, the Grade 3 ELLNA mean is 63.2 and the Grade 6 NAT mean is 60.3, both below 75. Numeracy and Science are the weakest areas, and division means span about 30 points. On the CRLA, 15.7% of Grade 1 to 3 learners read at grade level, and 5.3% in Grade 1.

### What does EDCOM II recommend on grading and the transmutation table?

EDCOM II recommends phasing out the transmutation table of DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015 and adopting criterion-referenced grading. It also recommends revising the RPMS and OPCRF so that teachers and school heads are not rewarded for high promotion rates over honest reporting.

## Download the data

The cleaned, harmonized DepEd files behind this series are free to download in CSV and Parquet, with a codebook and checksums, under the [terms of use](https://nash.com.ph/blog/download-cleaned-deped-school-data#terms-of-use-and-citation) set out in the release. [Download Cleaned DepEd School Data, SY 2017-18 to 2025-26](https://nash.com.ph/blog/download-cleaned-deped-school-data) documents every file and column. The files themselves are at data.nash.com.ph, starting with the [README](https://data.nash.com.ph/deped-data/v1/README.md), the [SY 2023-24 school master file](https://data.nash.com.ph/deped-data/v1/school_master_2023.csv.gz) (CSV, 8.0 MB) and the [nine-year enrollment panel](https://data.nash.com.ph/deped-data/v1/enrollment_panel_long.parquet) (Parquet, 17.2 MB).

## Guides for aspiring school heads

- [DepEd Data for Aspiring School Heads: Where to Start](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-data-aspiring-school-heads)
- [NASH Practice Questions With Answers: 50 Items on the PPSSH](https://nash.com.ph/blog/nash-practice-questions-with-answers)
- [How to Read DepEd Data: A Guide for Aspiring School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/how-to-read-deped-data)
- [EDCOM II Final Report: Guide for Aspiring School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/edcom-ii-final-report)
- [National Education Plan 2026-2035: Guide for School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/national-education-plan-2026-2035)
- [NASH Study Guide: DepEd Memorandum 069, s. 2025 and PPSSH](https://nash.com.ph/blog/nash-study-guide-ppssh)
- [PPSSH Domain 1: Leading Strategically With DepEd Data](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-1-leading-strategically)
- [PPSSH Domain 2: Managing School Operations With DepEd Data](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-2-managing-school-operations)
- [PPSSH Domain 4: Developing Self and Others With DepEd Data](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-4-developing-self-and-others)
- [PPSSH Domain 5: Building Connections With DepEd Data](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-5-building-connections)
- On the app: the [NASH guide](https://nash.com.ph/nash), the [PPSSH guide](https://nash.com.ph/ppssh), the [principal shortage](https://nash.com.ph/principal-shortage) and the full data report, [Philippine basic education in numbers](https://nash.com.ph/deped-data)

## The data reports

- [DepEd Enrollment Trends SY 2017-2018 to SY 2025-2026](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-enrollment-trends-2017-2026)
- Enrollment by school year: [SY 2017-18](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-enrollment-sy-2017-2018), [SY 2018-19](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-enrollment-sy-2018-2019), [SY 2019-20](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-enrollment-sy-2019-2020), [SY 2020-21](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-enrollment-sy-2020-2021), [SY 2021-22](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-enrollment-sy-2021-2022), [SY 2022-23](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-enrollment-sy-2022-2023), [SY 2023-24](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-enrollment-sy-2023-2024), [SY 2024-25](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-enrollment-sy-2024-2025), [SY 2025-26](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-enrollment-sy-2025-2026)
- [DepEd Learner Data SY 2023-2024: IP, ALIVE and School Size](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-learner-data-sy-2023-2024)
- [DepEd Teachers and School Personnel Data, SY 2023-2024](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-teachers-school-personnel-data-sy-2023-2024)
- [DepEd Classroom and School Building Data, SY 2023-2024](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-classroom-school-building-data-sy-2023-2024)
- [DepEd WASH Data SY 2023-2024: Toilets, Water, Electricity](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-wash-data-sy-2023-2024)
- [DepEd ICT Data SY 2023-2024: Computers and Internet](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-ict-data-sy-2023-2024)
- [NAT Grade 6 Results SY 2023-2024: DepEd Division Scores](https://nash.com.ph/blog/nat-grade-6-results-sy-2023-2024)
- [ELLNA Grade 3 Results SY 2023-2024: DepEd Division Scores](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ellna-grade-3-results-sy-2023-2024)
- [CRLA Results SY 2025-2026: Reading Levels in Grades 1 to 3](https://nash.com.ph/blog/crla-results-sy-2025-2026)
- [DepEd School Inputs vs Test Results: Multigrade and Internet](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-school-inputs-vs-test-results)
- [DepEd Open Data Quality: Errors, Blanks and Coverage Limits](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-open-data-quality)
- [Download Cleaned DepEd School Data, SY 2017-18 to 2025-26](https://nash.com.ph/blog/download-cleaned-deped-school-data)

*Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020 and the PPSSH booklet; [DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2025/08/11/august-11-2025-dm-069-s-2025-administration-of-the-national-assessment-for-school-heads-for-fiscal-year-2025/); DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015; EDCOM II Final Report, January 2026; DepEd public datasets. Charts may be reused only with written permission from support@nash.com.ph.*

---

© 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. All rights reserved. You may quote up to 100 words from this article with the author's name, its title and a link. In research, cite it as: Llego, M. A. (2026, October 25). *PPSSH Domain 3: Teaching and Learning With DepEd Data*. NASH Reviewer. https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-3-teaching-and-learning. Any other reuse of the article, its charts or its data needs written permission: email support@nash.com.ph. Terms of Service: https://nash.com.ph/terms#website-content-and-data