RA 9155 at 25: Why Shared Governance Has Not Happened

Republic Act (RA) No. 9155, the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, promised public schools shared governance, and 25 years on the promise has not been kept. The law made the school “the heart of the formal education system” and said schools “shall be empowered to make decisions on what is best for the learners they serve”. The Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II) concluded in its final report that this vision “remains largely unrealized”. Below are what EDCOM II found, what it recommends, and what a school head can still decide under the rules in force in October 2026.

This guide is written for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH), for newly designated school heads, and for teachers-in-charge who run schools without a principal. It does not repeat the 12 areas of a school head’s authority under RA 9155. The Department of Education (DepEd) adopted the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH) through DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020. At Career Stage 1, the PPSSH expects “basic knowledge and understanding of the authority, responsibility, and accountability expected of school heads”. At Career Stage 3, school heads “establish shared governance with the wider school community”. Knowing how far that authority really reaches is part of both.

Key points

• RA 9155 set a deadline for shared governance, and it passed long ago. Section 14 required the Secretary of Education to “fully implement the principle of shared governance within two (2) years after the approval of this Act”, which lapsed into law on August 11, 2001.
• EDCOM II found administrative devolution without fiscal autonomy. Its final report says field offices and schools “remain constrained in their ability to initiate programs, allocate resources, or manage personnel”. Only 5.9% of public schools (2,661 of 45,225) are Implementing Units with direct access to their funds.
• Division offices are sized by law, not by need. RA 9155 makes a division “a province or a city”, so, in EDCOM II’s example, the Leyte division oversees 1,363 schools while the Isabela City division manages 74, under the same staffing framework.
• About half of public schools still have no principal item. In October 2026, DepEd told the Senate that about half of public schools (about 23,000 of 45,928) had none, and the proposed 2027 budget funds no new principal items. A 2025 DepEd order makes a filled principal position a condition for becoming an Implementing Unit.
• School-based management showed modest gains when plans came with training and cash. Two World Bank studies of the 2000s found small positive effects on test scores, but could not say which part of the package made the difference. The last grants were for fiscal year 2014, and EDCOM II now calls school-based management “compliance-oriented”.
• EDCOM II’s remedies are recommendations, not yet policy. They include amending RA 9155 to allow differentiated division offices, more Implementing Units, a principal in every school, and an instructional leadership framework. Bills to amend RA 9155 had not become law by late October 2026.
• A school head has more room than the “memocracy” suggests. The rules on MOOE, the SIIF and the SEF all tie money to the school’s own plan, and RA 9155 already grants authority that does not wait for a memorandum.

RA 9155 shared governance: what the law promised in 2001

RA 9155 renamed the Department of Education, Culture and Sports as DepEd and set a framework for governing basic education. According to the Official Gazette, it “Lapsed into law on August 11, 2001 without the President’s signature”. It turned 25 in August 2026.

The school as the heart of the system

The law’s declaration of policy, in Section 2, puts schools at the center:

“The school shall be the heart of the formal education system. It is where children learn.”

Section 2 adds that the regions, divisions, schools and learning centers, the “field offices”, are where policy “shall be translated into programs, projects and services developed, adapted and offered to fit local needs”, and that “Schools and learning centers shall be empowered to make decisions on what is best for the learners they serve.” Section 3(b) promises to “provide resources to” the field offices, and Section 3(f) “to provide the means” by which local improvements “may be achieved and sustained”. The promise was authority and the means to use it.

The four principles of shared governance

Section 5 of RA 9155 sets out the “Principles of Shared Governance”.

Section 7 then divides authority from the Secretary down to the school head, whose part is the list of 12 areas in Section 7(E).

Money and a deadline

Congress expected the money to follow the authority. Section 10 requires that resources for school personnel, desks, textbooks and other instructional materials be “allocated directly and released immediately” by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to the field offices. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9155, issued through DepEd Order No. 1, s. 2003, go further. Rule VII, Section 8.1 tasks the Secretary, “In line with the decentralization of fiscal management to the level of field offices”, to set up “a procedure to directly and immediately release” to regional offices, divisions and schools the resources intended for them, including Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE).

Section 14 then set a deadline: the Secretary “shall fully implement the principle of shared governance within two (2) years after the approval of this Act”. That deadline fell in 2003.

What the law left out

The law that passed was narrower than its drafts. A 2025 study for EDCOM II by Laguda, Aquino, Cangayao and Tagle, Realizing Shared Governance: Decentralization of Philippine Basic Education, reports that the Senate version proposed a School Advisory Council at the barangay level to prepare the school’s improvement plan and raise funds, and a School Innovation and Improvement Fund (SIIF) on top of each school’s MOOE. The final law “excluded the creation of the SIIF and the SAC” (Laguda et al., 2025, p. 24). The same study notes that RA 9155 did not give division offices the explicit authority to procure that the first EDCOM had recommended, although in practice SDOs handle payroll and buy supplies, materials and equipment (p. 23).

A 2008 discussion paper by Bautista, Bernardo and Ocampo, written for the Philippine Human Development Report, described RA 9155 as a milestone that, in principle if not yet in practice, moved responsibility for basic education down to the schools (Bautista et al., 2008, p. 4).

RA 9155 at 25: what EDCOM II found on decentralization in DepEd

EDCOM II reviewed DepEd’s charter at a hearing on October 28, 2025. Its final report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), published in January 2026, titles the result “The Unfulfilled Promise of Decentralized Education Governance”:

“Twenty-four years after the passage of Republic Act No. 9155 … The law’s vision of decentralized governance where schools serve as the heart of the education system and field offices exercise meaningful autonomy remains largely unrealized despite numerous reform initiatives and policy interventions.” (EDCOM II, 2026, p. 385)

The report’s section on Priority Area 27, Decentralization and Participatory Governance, adds: “Republic Act No. 9155’s vision of ‘shared governance’ has not materialized, as DepEd continues to function through highly centralized, memo-driven decision-making that limits initiative across regions, divisions, and schools” (p. 369). It draws on the Laguda study, done with The Asia Foundation, which rests on a policy review and EDCOM II’s focus group discussions; its authors note that these “may not fully capture the diversity of perspectives” (Laguda et al., 2025, p. 13). The findings below are what EDCOM II and the study report, not results of a national survey.

Administrative devolution without fiscal autonomy

EDCOM II finds that “decentralization efforts have produced administrative devolution without meaningful fiscal or political autonomy for schools and field offices” (p. 388). Field offices and schools “remain constrained in their ability to initiate programs, allocate resources, or manage personnel, while the vast majority of public schools lack direct access to their allocated funds” (p. 388).

The plainest measure is the number of Implementing Units (IUs), the schools that receive and manage their own budgets. “Currently, only 5.9% of public schools (2,661 out of 45,225) are designated as implementing units” (p. 370). The other schools receive their MOOE through their Schools Division Office (SDO). EDCOM II says this “transforms what should be discretionary school-level spending into a centralized administrative bottleneck, further limiting principals’ ability to respond to immediate operational needs” (p. 370). Participants in EDCOM II’s consultations added that some division offices withhold portions of the MOOE meant for non-IU schools “beyond the necessity of risk management” (Laguda et al., 2025, p. 28).

Division offices sized by law, not by need

EDCOM II calls the SDOs “the primary interface with schools” and found them stretched thin. The 228 SDOs together have 22,356 regular personnel, against 897 at the Central Office and 2,114 in the regional offices: “a ratio of 1:1,237 SDO staff to learners”, which “fundamentally undermines the field offices’ ability to provide meaningful technical assistance and monitoring to schools” (p. 389).

The load is also uneven. “Leyte SDO oversees 1,363 schools while Isabela City SDO manages 74 schools, yet all operate under identical staffing frameworks” (p. 370). The report’s examples vary (its executive summary contrasts Davao City’s 542 schools with divisions of “as few as two”, p. 37), but all point the same way. EDCOM II traces this to RA 9155 itself. Section 7(C) says, “A division shall consist of a province or a city which shall have a schools division superintendent”. DepEd’s undersecretary for legal affairs told the October 2025 charter hearing that this wording “implies that there’s only one division in a province or a city”, which restricts DepEd from creating new divisions as provinces and cities grow (EDCOM II news release, October 29, 2025). Support for a school, EDCOM II concludes, “depends entirely on geographic accident rather than actual need” (p. 390). The data report on schools per district supervisor shows the same unevenness one level down.

Overlapping mandates

EDCOM II finds that DepEd’s mandate grew “without corresponding structural reforms” (p. 385). Three laws govern basic education at once: Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 of 1982, RA 9155 and RA 10533 of 2013, and DepEd sits in “at least 261” interagency bodies (p. 36). For schools, the overlap with local government units (LGUs) matters most: the Local Government Code assigns them school buildings and facilities, while, as EDCOM II reads it, RA 9155 makes DepEd responsible for “equitable access to quality education infrastructure”. EDCOM II warns of “a potential gap where neither level of government takes full responsibility for ensuring adequate school infrastructure particularly in financially constrained localities” (p. 391).

Schools without principals

For EDCOM II, no indicator “more starkly reveals the gap between policy aspiration and implementation reality” than the lack of principals. Based on School Year (SY) 2024-2025 data, 18,576 schools, or 48% of all schools, “have no principal items and rely on teachers-in-charge”, and another 12,057 schools “have incorrect school head items” (p. 390). The problem “was already a problem explicitly acknowledged during the 1999 deliberations on DepEd reform”, and the report prints the words of then Secretary of Education Br. Andrew Gonzales FSC to Congress on March 24, 1999:

“we have many schools that have no principals. And they have no principals because they have no items in the budget. … I don’t know how you can run a school without a principal.” (p. 392)

The figures have moved since the report. At a Senate hearing on October 16, 2026, DepEd reported that about half of public schools (about 23,000 of 45,928) had no principal item, down from 55% (26,453 of 48,113) in January 2026. About 2,000 of the 6,000 School Principal I items approved for 2026 had been filled, and 914 teachers-in-charge had been reclassified. The proposed 2027 budget funds no new principal items. EDCOM II counts 13,313 schools with neither a principal nor a head teacher (EDCOM II news release, October 18, 2026).

The principal shortage guide on the NASH Reviewer app tracks these figures, and the guide to principals, head teachers and teachers-in-charge explains who holds which role.

A culture of memos and compliance

Under the structural findings lies a habit. In an EDCOM II focus group, participants said schools must wait for a memorandum before acting, and called this “memocracy” (Laguda et al., 2025, p. 30). The study quotes a line that Bautista and colleagues had cited in 2008:

“The DepEd bureaucracy lives by the DepEd Memo. This is so ingrained in the system that administrators and school heads will wait for [it] rather than act on their own. A common joke made: A principal will wait for a DepEd Memo on ‘principal empowerment’ before he will act on an issue.” (Luz, 2008, as quoted in Laguda et al., 2025, p. 30)

Bautista, Bernardo and Ocampo reported that school heads were held back by fear of sanctions for making needed changes without a memorandum, and that some schools had turned down donations from credible donors because no memorandum allowed them (Bautista et al., 2008, pp. 33–34). The Laguda study adds that school leaders “often focus on meeting minimum requirements, fearing misinterpretation of policies from the Central Office” (p. 31).

DepEd now uses the word itself. Its Quality Basic Education Development Plan 2025-2035 (Q-BEDP) calls for “a shift in mindsets by moving away from overly centralized and top-down approaches”, which it calls “a culture of ‘memocracy’”, and “toward strategically empowering high-performing regions, divisions, and schools with more autonomy and targeted support” (DepEd, 2025, p. 17). That is a goal in a plan, not yet a result.

School-based management in the Philippines: what worked and what stalled

RA 9155 does not mention school-based management (SBM). The Laguda study notes that “SBM is not a mechanism mandated by R.A. No. 9155”, but that DepEd adopted it “as an explicit policy on decentralization” (p. 35). The current order, DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024, defines SBM as “the decentralization of decision-making authority from central, regional, and division levels to the individual schools”. The guide to the revised SBM system explains the order; this section looks at whether SBM delivered.

What worked in the 2000s

The first large SBM effort ran in 23 provinces (school divisions) under the World Bank-supported Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP), from 2003 to 2005 (Khattri, Ling, & Jha, 2010, p. 3; Yamauchi, 2014, p. 2). Schools wrote a five-year school improvement plan (SIP) “in partnership with parents and the community using data such as student achievement”, with the principal or head teacher, who had been trained for it, leading. The schools also received their MOOE “directly in cash rather than in kind”, to use according to their annual implementation plan (Khattri et al., 2010, pp. 3–4). By the end, SBM covered 84% of the 8,613 schools in the project divisions.

A World Bank study of those divisions, using difference-in-differences with propensity score matching, found that SBM had a statistically significant positive effect on test scores, with effect sizes the authors call “small to moderate”: about 1.5 percentage points on the overall score (Khattri et al., 2010, p. 13). A second World Bank study looked at divisions that adopted SBM after 2006, when SBM grants were allocated “based on significance of their SIP/AIP” (Yamauchi, 2014, p. 9). It found that SBM raised the National Achievement Test score “by 4.2 points over three years”, and by 5.7 points in mathematics (p. 4).

Bautista and colleagues, writing in 2008, presented SBM under TEEP and the Australian-funded BEAM project, which together reached 21% of the country’s schools divisions, as a case of decentralization that worked (Bautista et al., 2008, pp. 6–7). A 2016 World Bank note on SBM in the Philippines named a key reason for its success: “the provision of ever-increasing levels of operational funding to the school level coupled with the devolution of greater school autonomy over the use of these funds” (World Bank, 2016, p. 1).

One caution: in both studies SBM came as a package of training, plans and money, so neither can say which part made the difference.

What stalled

The momentum did not hold. By 2008, a World Bank and Australian aid review noted slow implementation of the direct release of MOOE to selected schools and of the 2006 and 2007 SBM grants, while a proposal to amend RA 9155 to restore district supervisors’ supervisory powers over school heads was moving in Congress (Bautista et al., 2008, p. 17).

A national survey in late 2014, reported in the World Bank’s 2016 note, found that most schools rated themselves at the lowest level of SBM and “Fewer than 10 percent” at the highest, with the main weaknesses “related to school autonomy” (p. 3). Only about 7% of an elementary school’s funds and 12% of a high school’s were the school’s to spend at its own discretion (p. 5), and nearly three-quarters of household heads did not know their child’s school had a School Governing Council (p. 7).

The grants then stopped. The last grant order, DepEd Order No. 45, s. 2015, released fiscal year (FY) 2014 funds “To further strengthen decentralization efforts at the school level and in line with Republic Act No. 9155”: PHP 50,000 to PHP 125,000 for schools of 300 or fewer learners in 3rd- to 6th-class municipalities, for activities “based on the SIP”. The Laguda study reports that grants to fund school improvement plans “appear to have been discontinued since 2016”, and that “Most schools craft their SIPs out of compliance rather than undertake the participatory bottom-up approach intended by SBM” (p. 39). EDCOM II’s final report adopts the conclusion: “School-Based Management has become compliance-oriented, with schools spending most of their MOOE on utilities, leaving little room for innovation” (p. 369).

DO 007, s. 2024 admits part of this: practitioners found SBM “laden with voluminous and repetitive documentary requirements”, so the order dropped the attaching of means of verification. That cut paperwork; it did not add money or authority. The School Improvement Plan policy review on the NASH Reviewer app weighs this evidence and finds it consistent in direction but thin.

Who controls school money: Implementing Units, MOOE, SIIF and SEF

Shared governance needs money that follows the plan. A public school plans with four main sources, and each has a different owner.

MOOE and the Implementing Unit gap

School MOOE is governed by DepEd Order No. 008, s. 2019, which names Section 10 of RA 9155 among its legal bases. An IU school has Bookkeeper and Disbursing Officer positions and receives its cash directly from the DBM. A non-IU school has no financial staff and receives its MOOE from the SDO as cash advances to the school head. The school MOOE guide explains the cash advance and liquidation rules.

Becoming an IU is not in a school’s hands. DepEd Order No. 033, s. 2025, dated October 9, 2025, revised the criteria “To further promote decentralization and capacitate schools in handling their funds”. A school must have:

1. an organization code issued by the DBM;
2. “an incumbent filled up principal position”; and
3. designated financial staff, a bookkeeper and a disbursing officer.

The Central Office identifies qualifying schools from the electronic School Form 7 (eSF7) and the Finance Service’s list of IU and non-IU schools. Read with the principal figures above, the second criterion means a school with no principal item cannot become an IU under the current rules. DepEd’s Q-BEDP targets 100% of schools as IUs by 2031, from a baseline of 5.88% (DepEd, 2025, pp. 10, 43), without saying how schools without principals or financial staff will get there.

The amount of MOOE matters as much as who holds it. Drawing on a World Bank study and its own consultations, EDCOM II found that schools spend “anywhere between 30%-70% of their MOOE on utility bills” (Laguda et al., 2025, p. 38). EDCOM II reports that a new normative formula, “set for full implementation in FY 2026”, gives schools “more discretionary resources for day-to-day operations” (EDCOM II, 2026, p. 36).

The SIIF: an old idea, now by memorandum

The SIIF of the Senate bill came back in 2025, through a yearly budget line and a DepEd memorandum rather than a standing law. DepEd says it established the SIIF through DepEd Memorandum No. 073, s. 2025 “to enhance learner outcomes in literacy and numeracy, and to strengthen school-level participatory governance in alignment with the decentralized management principles under Republic Act (RA) No. 9155”. In its first year it went to 4,043 non-IU elementary and junior high schools in 4th- and 5th-class municipalities, and DepEd reports an 84% fund utilization rate (DM 048, s. 2026, Encl., Rationale).

DepEd Memorandum No. 048, s. 2026, issued August 3, 2026, extends it “to Strengthen Decentralization Practices” for FY 2026:

• All non-IU elementary, junior high and senior high schools are eligible.
• The PHP 2,289,250,000 comes from the SIIF line item in the FY 2026 General Appropriations Act.
• Allocations are “predetermined and final”, with no proposals. The matrix runs from PHP 50,000 to PHP 110,000; in Annex A, 26,577 of the 43,249 recipient schools get PHP 50,000, and none gets more than PHP 85,700.
• Planned activities must be “reflected in their approved School Improvement Plan (SIP) and Annual Implementation Plan (AIP)” and focus on literacy and numeracy.
• The fund “shall be utilized exclusively for Fiscal Year 2026”.

Set side by side, the SIIF looks much like the SBM grant of 2014: a small, plan-linked grant, first aimed at disadvantaged schools, justified by RA 9155. The Senate bill’s version, as the Laguda study describes it, would have been “funded regularly under the General Appropriations Act (GAA)” by law (p. 24). The 2025 and 2026 funds rest on a yearly appropriation and a yearly memorandum.

The Special Education Fund

The Special Education Fund (SEF) is a local fund budgeted by the Local School Board (LSB). Joint Circular No. 01, s. 2025 of DepEd, the DBM, the Department of the Interior and Local Government and the Department of Finance ties it to the school’s plan. The LSB prepares the schools’ budgetary requirements “based on the DepEd-approved SIP and DEDP”, and all SEF expenditure items must be “contained in the approved SIP and DEDP” (§6.3, §6.3.1). The LSB also considers the school head’s report at the start of each school year, “which will provide an annual progress report on the SIP” (§6.4.2).

EDCOM II warns that joint circulars “can be rescinded or revised by succeeding administrations” and recommends amending the Local Government Code to make the reforms permanent (p. 36). Local School Boards and the Special Education Fund covers how the fund is raised and spent, what EDCOM II found about it and how a school head can ask the board for support.

Who decides what about school money

The school decides what the money is for, through its plan, but rarely how much it gets or when. The SIP policy review’s section on money follows each fund in more detail.

What EDCOM II recommends for RA 9155 and DepEd governance

EDCOM II says that “Moving forward requires fundamental restructuring rather than incremental reforms” (p. 391). Its recommendations are proposals to Congress and DepEd; none has yet changed RA 9155.

The counts of schools without principals differ: 18,576 in EDCOM II’s governance chapter (p. 390), “over 21,800” in its recommendations (pp. 32, 300), and about 23,000 of 45,928 schools, about half, in DepEd’s October 2026 testimony.

EDCOM II’s roadmap states the end in mind for 2035: “School communities and local stakeholders have the capacity, authority, and resources to design and implement programs that improve learning outcomes”, and “Schools have functional SGCs, funded SIPs, and practice SBM” (p. 496). These are targets, not current policy.

The Laguda study adds a school-level recommendation: review “existing policies, such as DepEd orders and memoranda, that go against the principle of allowing principals to manage their schools effectively”, revive SBM grants through an institutional funding mechanism, and reorient division and regional personnel “on management and supervision methods that encourage principals to lead their schools” (Laguda et al., 2025, p. 44).

What the school head does: using the authority RA 9155 already gives

The structural fixes belong to Congress, the DBM and DepEd’s Central Office. A school head cannot create a division, an IU or a principal item. But the rules in force give more room than the habit of waiting for memos uses. The steps follow a school year in a non-IU school, which is most schools.

1. Know your grant. Read Section 7(E) of RA 9155 and, if you are a teacher-in-charge, your designation order. The 12 areas are authority you hold “Consistent with the national educational policies, plans and standards”; they do not wait for a memorandum. The RA 9155 duties guide lists them.
2. Get your numbers in writing. DO 008, s. 2019 requires the SDO to “Inform in writing the heads of ESs and SSs without financial staff of their annual MOOE allocation”, and the Central Office to post every school’s allocation on the DepEd website. Plan with the real figure.
3. Make the plan the master of every fund. The first use of MOOE listed in DO 008, s. 2019 is “activities as identified in the approved School Improvement Plan (SIP)”. The SIIF funds only activities in the approved SIP and AIP, and SEF expenditure items must be “contained in the approved SIP and DEDP”, the division’s education development plan. A clear plan built on the school’s own data steers all three. The SIP guide covers the steps.
4. Consult before you decide. Section 5(b) asks for “democratic consultation”. DO 007, s. 2024 says school heads, “in consultation with internal and external stakeholders”, decide on “issues and concerns directly involving day-to-day school operations”. Bring the planning team, learners, parents and the School Governance Council into the SIP and the SBM self-assessment; the guide to the School Governance Council, PTA and partners explains each body’s role.
5. Keep the cash moving. For a non-IU school, the next cash advance needs a Cash Disbursement Register covering at least 75% of the previous one, and the SDO must replenish “within three (3) working days upon receipt of the liquidation report” (DO 008, s. 2019). The same order prohibits SDOs from “undertaking centralized procurement of any goods or services out of school MOOE intended for distribution to schools in kind”, except in extreme cases, such as a school head with unliquidated cash advances, which the SDO must then report to its regional office and the Central Office.
6. Report outward. Section 5(c) requires transparency at all levels. DO 008, s. 2019 requires a publicly accessible transparency board “updated every three (3) months” and a School Report Card presentation of the school’s sources and uses of funds to the faculty, the PTA, the School Governance Council and local partners.
7. Report upward, with evidence. Section 5(b) also requires “Feedback mechanisms” between the central office and the schools. DO 007, s. 2024 says agreements between the school and its SDO “shall be documented in the Remarks column” of the SBM checklist. Record what you asked for and when: technical assistance, cash releases, staffing.
8. Act within your authority without waiting. The law already lets you accept donations for the three purposes it names and report them, recommend your staffing complement, and introduce new modes of instruction within national standards. Waiting for a memorandum on matters the law assigns to you is the habit EDCOM II and the Laguda study describe.
9. Keep the eSF7 accurate. Under DO 033, s. 2025, the Central Office uses the eSF7 to identify schools that meet the criteria for becoming IUs.

Shared governance is partly a structure only Congress and DepEd can fix, and partly a practice. A school head who consults, plans, spends to the plan and reports both ways is doing what Section 5 asks. The guide to change management in schools has methods for leading a staff used to waiting for instructions.

RA 9155 shared governance and the PPSSH: strands and Career Stage 1 indicators

The PPSSH defines the school head in RA 9155’s words and grounds its principle of accountability and transparency in Section 5. The table gives the Career Stage 1 indicators most tied to shared governance, in the words of DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

At higher career stages the PPSSH goes further. Indicator 1.3.4, at Career Stage 4, reads “Recommend to higher authorities the enhancement of policies relevant to school operations based on implementation and review”: the upward feedback that Section 5(b) of RA 9155 asks for. The PPSSH guide lists every indicator at all four career stages, and the domain guides on Leading Strategically and Building Connections read the strands with DepEd data.

Practice: how the NASH may test this

DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025 says the NASH covers “conceptual and situational critical thinking questions aligned with” the PPSSH, using the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy. Expect conceptual items on what RA 9155 means by shared governance, and situational items on whether to act, consult or ask higher offices. The three items below are original practice items, not actual or recalled NASH items. Each option is scored 3-2-1-0, as in the NASH practice questions with answers. Timed sets are on the NASH Reviewer assessment page.

Question 1

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

At a learning action cell session on RA 9155, four teachers explain what the law’s “principle of shared governance” means for their school. Which explanation is most accurate?

• A. The Central Office decides on programs and resources, and the school shares in governance by carrying out the memoranda that reach it on time.
• B. The school decides for itself on all matters, because the law names the school as the heart of the formal education system.
• C. Each office, the school included, answers for the outcomes of its own role, so the school head is accountable for the school’s results.
• D. Each office answers for its own outcomes, decides after democratic consultation, keeps feedback flowing between levels, and acts transparently.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). This describes the “memocracy” that EDCOM II and its study criticize, not the principle in Section 5. Carrying out memoranda is implementation, not shared governance.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). It holds on to one true idea, the school as the heart of the system, but ignores that every school decision is made “Consistent with the national educational policies, plans and standards”.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Accountability for outcomes is Section 5(a), and it is correct. But the answer stops there and leaves out consultation, feedback and transparency.
• D (3 points, Relational). This connects the parts of Section 5 that govern decisions: accountability for outcomes (a), democratic consultation and feedback between the central office and the field (b), and transparency at all levels (c).

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.3.1 asks for knowledge of how laws and issuances shape school operations. Section 5 of RA 9155 defines shared governance as a principle in which “every unit in the education bureaucracy has a particular role, task and responsibility inherent in the office and for which it is principally accountable for outcomes”. It then adds democratic consultation and feedback mechanisms, accountability and transparency at all levels, and stronger links with local governments and nongovernmental organizations. The option that names only accountability gets the first part right and misses how the parts work together.

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: Republic Act No. 9155, Sections 5 and 7(E); EDCOM II Final Report (2026), p. 369; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 2

Indicator 2.2.1, Financial management. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

You are the teacher-in-charge of a non-implementing public elementary school. Your Annual Implementation Plan uses this year’s MOOE for reading materials and minor classroom repairs. The division office tells school heads that it will buy cleaning supplies for all schools in bulk, charge the cost to each school’s MOOE, and deliver the items in kind. Your school has no unliquidated cash advance. What is the most appropriate action?

• A. Accept the delivery, because the schools division superintendent supervises the operations of all schools in the division under RA 9155.
• B. Write to the superintendent, citing DO 008, s. 2019 and your AIP, and ask that your allocation be released as a cash advance as the order provides.
• C. Accept the delivery this time, record the items in the school’s books, and ask the division to consult school heads before the next bulk purchase.
• D. Hold back the school’s current liquidation report until the division agrees to release the whole allocation to the school in cash.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). The superintendent does supervise school operations under Section 7(C), but this single fact does not override the specific rule on school MOOE.
• B (3 points, Relational). This links the rule in DO 008, s. 2019, the school’s own plan, and the proper channel. It uses the feedback route Section 5(b) of RA 9155 provides and asks for what the order already requires.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Recording the items and asking for consultation are both sound, but the answer accepts a practice the order prohibits and leaves the AIP unfunded.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). Withholding a liquidation breaks the cash advance rules, delays the school’s next release, and puts the school head at audit risk.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.2.1 asks for knowledge of the rules on allocation, procurement, disbursement and liquidation “aligned with the school plan”. DO 008, s. 2019 states: “The SDOs are prohibited from undertaking centralized procurement of any goods or services out of school MOOE intended for distribution to schools in kind.” The exception covers extreme cases, such as a school with unliquidated cash advances, and even then the division must report. The option that records the items and asks for consultation knows good practice but misses the rule that settles the case.

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

Sources: DepEd Order No. 008, s. 2019, Part V.C and V.D; Republic Act No. 9155, Sections 5 and 7; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 3

Indicator 5.5.1, Community engagement. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

The municipal Local School Board invites school heads to its planning for next year’s Special Education Fund budget. Your school’s approved SIP names Grade 3 reading as its first priority improvement area, and your latest reading assessment shows many Grade 3 learners below grade level. What is the most appropriate response?

• A. Send a request for a new stage and a covered court, since these are the school’s most visible needs and the LSB decides the SEF.
• B. Ask the LSB to fund new reading interventions first, then add them to the school’s SIP once the LSB has approved the money.
• C. Present the SIP’s reading priority with the assessment results, request support for interventions already in the plan, and report on their use.
• D. Decline the invitation, because public schools are funded by DepEd and the LSB has no part in a school’s improvement plan.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). Engaging the LSB is right, but the request ignores the school’s plan, and the SEF rules require items to be in the approved SIP and DEDP.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). The focus on reading and the use of the LSB are right, but the order is reversed. Under the SEF rules, expenditure items must already be “contained in the approved SIP and DEDP”.
• C (3 points, Relational). This connects the plan, the evidence, the LSB’s rules and the duty to report. It follows how Joint Circular No. 01, s. 2025 ties the SEF to the approved SIP and to the school head’s annual progress report.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). RA 9155 asks schools to work with local government units, and the SEF rules give the LSB a role built around the school’s own plan.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.5.1 asks school heads to involve “authorities” and other stakeholders in school programs. Joint Circular No. 01, s. 2025 makes the LSB prepare school budgets “based on the DepEd-approved SIP and DEDP” and consider the school head’s report on the state of education, “which will provide an annual progress report on the SIP”. Section 5(d) of RA 9155 asks schools to “expand linkages with other government agencies, local government units and nongovernmental organizations”. The option that asks for funds first and plans later shows engagement but misreads the sequence the rules set.

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: Joint Circular No. 01, s. 2025 (DepEd, DBM, DILG and DOF), §6.3–6.4; Republic Act No. 9155, Section 5; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Frequently asked questions

What is shared governance in RA 9155?

It is the principle in Section 5 of RA 9155 that “every unit in the education bureaucracy has a particular role, task and responsibility inherent in the office and for which it is principally accountable for outcomes”. Section 5 adds democratic consultation, feedback between the central office and the field, accountability and transparency at all levels, and links with local governments and nongovernmental organizations.

Is DepEd decentralized under RA 9155?

Only partly. RA 9155 assigns authority to regions, divisions and schools, but EDCOM II’s final report finds that decentralization has produced “administrative devolution without meaningful fiscal or political autonomy for schools and field offices”. Only 5.9% of public schools are Implementing Units with direct access to their funds.

What is the difference between deconcentration and devolution in basic education?

In the 2025 study for EDCOM II, deconcentration is the transfer of authority from the DepEd Central Office to its regional offices, division offices and schools. Devolution is the transfer of authority, functions or resources from the national government to local government units. The only education function the Local Government Code specifically devolves to LGUs is the maintenance of school buildings and facilities.

What did EDCOM II recommend about RA 9155?

It recommends amending RA 9155 “to allow differentiated SDO configurations based on actual supervisory load”, designating more schools as Implementing Units, and deconcentrating local procurement, non-teaching staff hiring and minor repairs, plus a dedicated school head in every school and an Instructional Leadership Framework. These remain recommendations.

Is there a bill to amend RA 9155?

Yes. House Bill No. 9358, which amends RA 9155 and allows additional schools division offices and school districts, passed the House on third reading on June 3, 2026, after House Bill No. 7607 cleared the House committee in March. Senate Bill No. 2089, which would let the Secretary create, merge or subdivide division offices on objective criteria, was heard in the Senate committee on June 2, 2026. None had become law by late October 2026: on October 27, DepEd said it would seek congressional approval for its plan for 13 new divisions, which requires amending RA 9155.

How does a DepEd school become an Implementing Unit?

Under DepEd Order No. 033, s. 2025, a school must have an organization code from the DBM, a filled principal position, and a designated bookkeeper and disbursing officer. The Central Office identifies qualifying schools from the eSF7 and its list of IU and non-IU schools.

More on school leadership

This post is part of a series on what a school head does under the DepEd rules in force today. Related posts:

• RA 9155 Duties of DepEd School Heads: 12 Areas Explained
• Principal, Head Teacher or Teacher-in-Charge in DepEd
• School Governance Council, PTA and Partners: A Guide
• DepEd Revised SBM: DO 007, s. 2024 and the Self-Assessment
• DepEd School Improvement Plan (SIP): Steps, AIP and SRC
• DepEd School MOOE: Allowable Expenses and Liquidation
• OPCRF for DepEd School Heads in 2026: What Applies Now
• Leadership Styles of School Heads: What the Evidence Says
• Change Management in Schools: A Guide for DepEd School Heads
• EDCOM II Final Report: Guide for Aspiring School Heads
• DepEd Schools per District Supervisor, SY 2023-2024
• RA 6713 for DepEd School Heads: Ethics and Internal Control
• On the app: the School Improvement Plan policy review, the principal shortage guide, The roles of a school head, and the PPSSH guide

Sources

• Republic Act No. 9155, Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, Sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 14, Official Gazette.
• DepEd Order No. 1, s. 2003, Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9155, Rule VII, Section 8.1.
• DepEd Order No. 45, s. 2015, Guidelines on School-Based Management (SBM) Grants for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014.
• DepEd Order No. 008, s. 2019, Revised Implementing Guidelines on the Direct Release, Use, Monitoring and Reporting of MOOE Allocation of Schools, Including Other Funds Managed by Schools.
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads.
• DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024, Immediate Removal of Administrative Tasks of Public School Teachers.
• DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024, Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Revised School-Based Management (SBM) System.
• DepEd Order No. 033, s. 2025, Amendment to DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2014 (conversion of schools from non-implementing to implementing units).
• DepEd Memorandum No. 025, s. 2025, Modeling of the Delivery Unit in the DepEd Central Office and Regional Offices I, III, VIII, IX, and Cordillera Administrative Region.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025, Administration of the National Assessment for School Heads for Fiscal Year 2025.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 073, s. 2025, Allocation and Release of the School Innovation and Improvement Fund to Eligible Public Schools.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 048, s. 2026, Allocation and Release of the School Innovation and Improvement Fund to Non-Implementing Unit Public Schools to Strengthen Decentralization Practices in the Department of Education for Fiscal Year 2026, with Annex A.
• Joint Circular No. 01, s. 2025 (DepEd, DBM, DILG and DOF), Omnibus Guidelines on the Use of the Special Education Fund, §6.3–6.4.
• DepEd (2025). Quality Basic Education Development Plan 2025-2035, pp. 10, 17 and 43.
• EDCOM II (2026). Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), Final Report: pp. 32, 36–37, 77, 300, 369–372, 385–392, 496–497 (printed page numbers).
• EDCOM II news releases: DepEd urged to review policy on establishment of school division offices (October 29, 2025); Uneven loads of DepEd division offices creates logjams in school support and funding (February 12, 2026); House committee greenlights bill to decongest large DepEd school divisions (March 2, 2026); Aquino files bill to strengthen school division offices, push deeper decentralization in basic education (May 5, 2026); EDCOM 2: Give DepEd flexibility to decongest overloaded school divisions offices (June 2, 2026); EDCOM pushes for 2027 budget to close the gap in school principals nationwide (October 18, 2026).
• De Layola, Z. (2026, June 4). House approves 3 key education measures on third reading. Philippine News Agency, via PTV News (House Bill No. 9358).
• Apacible, L. M. (2026, October 27). DepEd eyes 13 new divisions to ease school oversight gaps. Daily Tribune.
• Laguda, R., Aquino, G., Cangayao, L., & Tagle, R. (2025). Realizing Shared Governance: Decentralization of Philippine Basic Education. The Asia Foundation and EDCOM II, Priority Area 27.
• World Bank (2016). Assessing School-based Management in the Philippines. Philippines Education Note No. 5, Report 106953.
• Khattri, N., Ling, C., & Jha, S. (2010). The Effects of School-based Management in the Philippines: An Initial Assessment Using Administrative Data. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5248.
• Yamauchi, F. (2014). An Alternative Estimate of School-based Management Impacts on Students’ Achievements: Evidence from the Philippines. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6747.
• Bautista, M. C. R. B., Bernardo, A. B. I., & Ocampo, D. (2008). When Reforms Don’t Transform: Reflections on Institutional Reforms in the Department of Education. Human Development Network Discussion Paper Series, PHDR Issue 2008/2009, No. 2.
• NASH Reviewer: School Improvement Plan policy review and principal shortage guide.

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: Republic Act No. 9155 (Official Gazette); DepEd Order No. 1, s. 2003 (IRR of RA 9155); EDCOM II Final Report (2026) and news releases; Laguda et al. (2025); World Bank (2016); Khattri et al. (2010); Yamauchi (2014); Bautista et al. (2008); DepEd Orders No. 45, s. 2015, No. 008, s. 2019, No. 024, s. 2020, No. 002 and No. 007, s. 2024, and No. 033, s. 2025; DepEd Memoranda No. 025, No. 069 and No. 073, s. 2025, and No. 048, s. 2026; Joint Circular No. 01, s. 2025; the Q-BEDP 2025-2035.