Root Cause Analysis for the DepEd School Improvement Plan

In root cause analysis for the School Improvement Plan (SIP) of a Department of Education (DepEd) public school, a project team writes a focused problem statement and finds root causes with the fishbone diagram, the five whys, the problem tree and the Pareto chart. It then pilots, rolls out and sustains a solution. The steps follow the Assess and Act phases of DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, the SIP guideline. They also follow DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024, which asks every school to build a culture of continuous improvement. A worked example follows a Grade 3 reading problem from the first data to the result.

It is written for new school heads and for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH, formerly the NQESH). The Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), adopted by DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, place this work in Domain 1, Leading Strategically. It serves Strands 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.7. The SIP steps, the planning team and the School Report Card (SRC) are explained in the DepEd School Improvement Plan guide. This post is the toolkit a project team uses inside those steps.

Key points

• A root cause is the deepest cause of a problem in a school process, and it is not the solution. The SIP Guidebook enclosed with DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 says the root cause “should be observable and measurable”. When the school fixes it, the problem should become smaller and not return.
• Start from a focused problem statement with data. State how big the problem is, how often it happens, where and when. Keep causes, solutions and blame out of it.
• Gather evidence from at least three sources before you name a cause. Use school records, the voice of learners and parents, and direct observation of the process, then check that the sources agree.
• Use one diagram tool, then test the cause. The guidebook names the fishbone diagram, the why-why diagram and the problem tree. A Pareto chart ranks causes that you can count.
• Pilot first, compare before and after, then let the process owners roll it out. Write the improved routine as a standard procedure and keep measuring. This is the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle at work.

Where root cause analysis fits in the DepEd School Improvement Plan

DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 sets three phases for the SIP: Assess, Plan and Act. Its guidelines say the Assess phase includes “analyzing the school data and processes to determine the root cause of each PIA.” A PIA is a priority improvement area, such as low reading proficiency or high dropout. The Act phase “involves small-scale testing then implementation of the solutions.”

Root cause analysis came into the SIP from continuous improvement (CI). The 2015 guidelines say the enhanced SIP harmonized school planning with the CI process. They note that most CI steps are not new to schools. What is new is the emphasis on listening to learners and other stakeholders, re-examining school processes and doing root cause analysis.

DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024, the revised School-Based Management (SBM) policy, keeps this direction. It says: “All schools shall endeavor to cultivate a culture of continuous improvement.” It defines self-reflection as “understanding a school’s current situation by describing the roots of issues, concerns, and areas for improvement and identifying responsive courses of action.” It takes its definition of continuous improvement from DO 44, s. 2015, which it lists among its references. As of October 2026, DepEd has no separate order in force on a continuous improvement program.

School improvement projects of this kind usually move through three stages and ten steps. The table maps them to the activities in the SIP Guidebook.

The guidebook asks each project team for a member list with roles, or a team charter. A one-page project charter holds the project title, the problem statement, the scope, the objective and its measures, the team, the timeline and the resources.

The app’s policy review, Is the School Improvement Plan working?, looks at how SIPs are written and used in practice, including reports of teams copying templates instead of analyzing their data.

Symptom, root cause and solution: the difference

A symptom is what people see: low scores, absences, wrong grades. A cause is a condition in a school process that produces the symptom. The root cause is the deepest cause that the school can identify, observe and change. A solution is the action that removes or weakens the root cause.

The guidebook defines the root cause as “the deepest underlying cause of the problems within any process.” It adds that “The root cause is not the solution”. Solutions built without it “may only address the symptoms”, so the problem returns. Quality engineers James Rooney and Lee Vanden Heuvel give a practical definition in their 2004 article “Root Cause Analysis for Beginners”. A root cause is specific, can be reasonably identified, is within management’s control, and leads to recommendations that prevent the problem from coming back.

The guidebook’s Annex 8 also separates direct and indirect causes. A direct cause directly affects the problem: fever causes absence. An indirect cause affects a direct cause but is not enough by itself: poverty contributes to malnutrition. The guidebook says the direct cause is the type “we want to address”.

Three traps turn a cause statement into something else:

• A solution in disguise. “Lack of reading tablets” assumes that tablets are the answer. Ask what the tablets would do, and state that as the cause.
• Blame. “Lazy learners” or “uncaring parents” is a judgment that no one can observe or measure.
• A cause outside the school’s control. Poverty is real, but it is indirect. Keep asking why until you reach a direct cause that the school can act on.

The running example: Grade 3 reading in one school

All numbers in this example are illustrative. They show how the tools work. They are not data from a real school.

An elementary school has four Grade 3 sections with 152 learners. Its start-of-year reading assessment shows 61 learners (40%) reading Filipino texts below grade level. The School-Community Planning Team (SPT) makes Grade 3 reading a PIA. It forms a project team of the four Grade 3 advisers, the reading coordinator, a parent and a Grade 6 learner leader, with one SPT member.

The problem is about teaching and learning, so the teachers on the team come from the school’s Learning Action Cell (LAC). DepEd Order No. 44 says projects on teaching-learning problems “should involve the members of the school’s LACs”. The sections below use this case for each tool. A second case, Monday absences in Grade 5, shows the problem tree and the Pareto chart.

How to write a focused problem statement for the SIP

A PIA is a broad problem. A team cannot find one root cause for “poor reading”. The SIP Guidebook asks the team to choose an area of focus and write it as a problem statement. The statement answers four questions: how big the problem is, how often it happens, where it happens and when.

Draft the statement from school data at the start. Sharpen it after the team has listened to learners and walked the process (Activities 3.3 to 3.5). In the guidebook, the area of focus is one “storm cloud”: a problem that the team observed at one step of a school process.

Use this formula:

In or during [time], [number] of [total] [who or what] [observable problem] [where], [how often].

A good focused problem statement passes five checks:

1. It has numbers: how many out of how many, or how much.
2. It names when, where and who.
3. It describes something that people can observe or count.
4. It contains no cause (“because …”), no solution (“lack of remedial classes”) and no blame (“lazy”).
5. It is narrow enough that the team can measure it again after the solution.

Gathering evidence: school data, learner voice and walking the process

Evidence comes before the cause. DepEd Order No. 44 defines evidence-based as “the needs identified are supported by school-community data and the proposed solutions are tested and proven to be effective.” A team needs three kinds of evidence, and then checks that they agree.

School data

Start with records the school already keeps: enrollment, attendance, reading assessment results such as the Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA), test results, nutritional status and dropout records. Compare sections, grade levels, boys and girls, months and days of the week. The CRLA results report shows how such data look across divisions.

Data show where and when a problem is largest. They rarely show why. The SBM self-assessment checklist in DO 007, s. 2024 lists the indicator “The school conducts test item analysis to inform its teaching and learning process”. Item analysis is one way to turn test data into evidence.

Learner voice and other stakeholders

The guidebook asks project teams to talk to “the faces behind the numbers” and says this step “should not be skipped”. Teams use interviews, surveys or focus group discussions (FGDs) with learners, parents and other stakeholders. Home visits are necessary when the learners who matter most, such as habitually absent learners, cannot come to school.

Annex 6 of the guidebook gives the method. Ask open-ended, clear questions, avoid leading or loaded ones, and let people talk. Write answers word for word in the speaker’s own language. Separate needs, which are what people expect to receive, from wants, which are how they prefer to receive it.

Interview children where they feel safe and where other adults can see you. Leave learners’ names out of the report.

Walking the process and direct observation

A school process is “a set of activities arranged together in order to deliver a service”, in the guidebook’s words. Examples are enrollment, attendance checking, a reading period and test checking. “Walking the process” means following it step by step, where and when it happens.

Annex 7 gives three steps. First, brainstorm the steps with the people who do the work. Second, interview them to find missing steps and decision points. Third, observe the process directly. The guidebook says “Direct observations are a must if you want to validate how the process works.”

During observation, the team writes “storm clouds” at the step where each problem occurs. The guidebook says storm clouds “are specific, measurable, and observable”. Tell teachers before you observe that the team is studying a process, not rating a teacher.

Triangulation: check that the sources agree

Annex 8 describes triangulation. If three or more data sources identify a cause as direct, the team can have confidence in it. The guidebook’s example sources are school data, an interview with the child and an FGD with parents.

Root cause analysis tools at a glance

The guidebook suggests that a team “only use one tool to make the diagram” of root causes. The affinity diagram and the Pareto chart organize evidence. They do not replace the root cause diagram.

Process map and SIPOC: how the school process really works

Purpose. A process map, or flowchart, shows each step of a process in order, with its decisions. Frank and Lillian Gilbreth introduced process charts to American engineers in 1921. A SIPOC is a one-row summary that sets the scope before mapping: Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs and Customers.

Steps.

1. Name the process, its start and its end.
2. Write the SIPOC.
3. Brainstorm the steps on sticky notes with the people who do the work.
4. Arrange the steps from top to bottom or left to right, and show each decision as a question.
5. Interview the people involved to fill gaps.
6. Observe the process several times, and write storm clouds with numbers at the step where they occur.

Example: SIPOC of the Grade 3 reading period.

Example: the current process with its storm clouds (16 observed periods).

Across the whole period, each learner below grade level read aloud alone for an average of 1 minute. That storm cloud became the area of focus. A deployment chart, also called a swim-lane chart, adds a column for each person or office so that the team can see who does each step.

Common mistake. Mapping the process as the lesson plan or a school memo describes it. The guidebook asks for a map of “what is currently happening”, and it calls combining the present state with the desired outcome “The common mistake”. Draw what is happening, what people think happens and what should happen as separate maps.

Affinity diagram: sorting what learners and parents say

Purpose. An affinity diagram groups many statements into a few themes. Jiro Kawakita, a Japanese anthropologist, developed it in the 1960s, and it is also called the KJ method. It turns pages of interview notes into a short list of needs.

Steps.

1. Write each statement from the interviews on its own card, in the speaker’s words.
2. Spread the cards on a table or wall.
3. Without talking, move cards that seem related into groups. A card may stand alone.
4. Name each group with a short title that says what the cards have in common.
5. Count the cards and speakers in each group, and group the groups if needed.

Example: 12 learners and 10 parents in the reading project.

Common mistake. Sorting the cards into categories the team chose before reading them, or rewriting the statements in the team’s words. Both hide what learners and parents actually said.

Fishbone diagram: a school example

Purpose. The fishbone diagram, also called the Ishikawa or cause-and-effect diagram, was developed by Kaoru Ishikawa, a Japanese quality management expert. The problem goes at the head. Main categories of causes form the bones, and specific causes attach to each bone. It helps a team list causes widely before it chooses any.

Seven categories fit most school problems: learners; teachers and teaching; materials and resources; process and schedule; measurement and records; environment; and home and community. Choose four to seven that fit yours. The guidebook’s own sample uses four: procedures, people, equipment and materials.

Steps.

1. Write the focused problem statement at the head.
2. Draw the bones and name the categories.
3. For each category, ask “What in this area could cause the problem?” Add sub-causes by asking why.
4. Write the evidence next to each cause, or mark it “not yet checked”.
5. Circle the causes that three or more sources support. Take them to the five whys or to the tests below.

Example: the reading problem.

Three causes had support from three or more sources: one text for all levels, whole-class choral reading, and assessment results that are not used to form groups. The team took these to the five whys.

Common mistake. Treating every cause on the diagram as proven. A fishbone lists possible causes, and evidence decides which ones matter. A second mistake is writing solutions on the bones, such as “no reading tablets”. The guidebook reminds teams that “Factors are different from solutions.”

Five whys: a worked school example

Purpose. The five whys follow one chain of causes. The team asks why the problem happens, and each answer becomes the next question. The method is credited to Sakichi Toyoda, founder of Toyota Industries. Taiichi Ohno made it a standard practice of the Toyota Production System. The SIP Guidebook calls the drawn form a why-why diagram. Five is a guide, not a rule.

Steps.

1. Start from the focused problem statement.
2. Ask why it happens. Answer with a fact, not a guess.
3. Write the evidence for each answer next to it.
4. Ask why again about the answer.
5. Stop when the answer is a process the school can change, or when the next why leads outside the school’s control.
6. Check the last answer with the tests in the next sections.

Example.

• Problem. In 16 observed reading periods, the 61 Grade 3 learners below grade level each read aloud alone for an average of 1 minute per 40-minute period.
• Why 1. Most of the period goes to whole-class choral reading (22 minutes) and copying (10 minutes). Evidence: observation.
• Why 2. All 38 learners use one Grade 3 text, which most learners below grade level cannot read alone. Evidence: observation; 9 of 12 learner interviews.
• Why 3. The classrooms have no texts at lower levels, and learners are not grouped by reading level. Evidence: inventory; teacher interviews.
• Why 4. The start-of-year assessment results are recorded and filed, but no step in the school’s process turns them into reading groups. Evidence: records review; process map.
• Why 5. The reading period was set up for whole-class teaching, and no one was given the task of grouping learners and matching texts. Evidence: teacher interviews; reading coordinator’s interview.
• Root cause. The school has no routine that uses assessment results to group learners by reading level and to match each group with texts at its level.

Common mistake. Ending with a person, such as “Teacher A does not care”, or with a condition that no one at school can change, such as “poverty”. A useful chain ends in a process. A second mistake is following only one chain. When an answer has two causes, draw a branch for each.

Problem tree: causes and effects of one core problem

Purpose. A problem tree puts one core problem in the middle, its causes below and its effects above. It is a common tool in development project planning and is often the first step of a logical framework. When each problem statement is rewritten as a positive condition, the problem tree becomes an objective tree, which helps the team write objectives.

Steps.

1. Agree on the core problem, using the focused problem statement.
2. Write its direct causes below it, and the causes of those causes below them.
3. Write its effects above it.
4. Read each link aloud as “this causes that”, and fix any link that does not make sense.
5. Mark the lowest causes that the school can control.

Example: Monday absences in Grade 5 (illustrative).

Common mistake. Mixing effects and causes, such as placing “low quiz scores” below the problem as a cause of absence. A second mistake is writing “lack of” solutions as causes.

Pareto chart: finding the few causes behind most cases

Purpose. A Pareto chart is a bar chart of counts by category, sorted from largest to smallest, with a line for the cumulative percent. The Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto observed in the 1890s that a small share of the population received most of the income. Joseph Juran, a pioneer of quality management, applied the idea to quality problems and named it the Pareto principle: separate “the vital few” causes from “the trivial many”. The 80/20 split is a rule of thumb, not a law.

Steps.

1. Decide what to count and over what period.
2. Define the categories before counting, so that every case fits one category.
3. Count the cases in each category.
4. Sort the categories from largest to smallest.
5. Compute each category’s percent and the cumulative percent.
6. Draw the bars and the cumulative line, in a spreadsheet or on graphing paper.
7. Focus on the top bars, then ask why about them.

Example: reasons for Grade 5 Monday absences over eight Mondays (illustrative). Advisers recorded the reason for each absence through follow-up calls and home visits.

The top two reasons explain 60% of Monday absences, and the top three explain 75%. The team asks why about the first two bars next. Home visits then show which parts of those reasons the school can act on, such as same-day follow-up of absences and planning with parents for Sunday travel.

Common mistake. Letting “other” grow into one of the largest bars, which means the categories are too few or unclear. A second mistake is ranking only by frequency when a rare cause is serious, such as a learner who is absent because of abuse at home. Such a case needs action at once, whatever its rank.

How to test that a cause is the real root cause

A cause is a root cause when it passes most of these tests. Apply them before the team presents its root cause to the SPT (Activity 3.7).

1. Timing. The cause existed before the problem.
2. Link. Where or when the cause is present, the problem is larger.
3. Removal. If the cause had not been present, the problem would not have happened, or would be much smaller.
4. Recurrence. If the cause is fixed, the problem will not come back from the same cause.
5. Prevention. Fixing the cause would also prevent similar problems elsewhere.
6. Evidence. Three or more sources support it, and the team has checked other explanations.
7. Control. The school can observe, measure and change it. The guidebook says the root cause “should be observable and measurable”.

Example: the reading root cause.

Stop asking why when the next answer leaves the school’s control, or when it would not change the solution.

How to prioritize root causes

A focused problem can have several root causes. Annex 8 of the guidebook offers two techniques to choose among them. Tallying counts how often a cause appears across the evidence, and a high count signals high prevalence. Triangulation checks that three or more sources support the cause.

Annex 8 adds a checklist. If the answers are yes, the team should probably prioritize the cause:

1. Is the root cause within your control?
2. Does it cut across different PIAs?
3. Would solving it lead to school-wide improvement?
4. Do you have enough resources to address it?
5. Is there enough time to think through the solution?

Two causes scored 5. The second one needs no project. The school head protects the reading period in the schedule, which is a decision within the school head’s authority. The project team puts its effort into the first cause, because that one needs design and testing.

How to generate and choose solutions

Brainstorm several solutions for each priority root cause, as the guidebook allows. Its Step 5 gives five considerations. A solution should address the root cause, be within the control of the school, and be economical and sustainable. It should also have the support of the concerned stakeholders or process owners.

Score each option from 1 (low) to 5 (high) on the five considerations.

The team chose option B and kept option C for a later cycle. Before writing the project, it described option B with four Ws and one H: what exactly happens, where, when, who is responsible and how. One project design should contain only one solution, as the guidebook’s Step 6 says.

Writing a SMART project objective

Step 6 of the guidebook asks for a project objective statement that says what the team wants to achieve and by how much. It should be SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-bound. The SPT discusses and agrees on the targets.

The reading project has two objectives (illustrative). The first measures the process, and the second measures the result for learners.

1. To raise the average time that Grade 3 learners below grade level read aloud alone from 1 minute to at least 10 minutes per period within eight weeks.
2. To reduce the number of Grade 3 learners reading below grade level from 61 to 40 or fewer by the end of the school year.

Risk analysis before the pilot

List what could go wrong, then score each risk for likelihood (L) and impact (I) from 1 to 5. The risk score is L × I, from 1 to 25. Decide the cut-off before you score, and apply it as written. A rule such as “act on scores above 10” means that a score of 9 is watched, not acted on.

The reading team decided to act at once on any score of 10 or more and to monitor the rest.

Piloting the solution and comparing before and after

Step 9 of the guidebook says to test a solution first “on a small population to reduce the risk of failure”, such as one section of a grade level. The team may test several solutions and roll out the most effective. It compares data before and after the test. If the solution is not effective, the team revisits how it was carried out. Solutions on facilities and infrastructure that cannot be tested may skip this step.

Design the pilot in seven steps:

1. Choose the pilot group. One section that is typical of the grade level.
2. Measure before. Use the measures in the problem statement and the objective.
3. Keep a comparison group. Sections not yet using the solution show what would have happened without it.
4. Fix the length. Allow enough weeks for change to show.
5. Record how the solution was actually carried out. Note minutes, attendance and problems each week.
6. Measure after. Use the same tool and the same rules as before.
7. Decide. Adopt the solution, adjust it, or drop it.

Example: eight-week pilot in Section B (illustrative).

In the pilot section, 7 of 16 learners (44%) moved to grade level. In the other three sections, 3 of 45 (7%) did. The process measure rose from 1 to 11 minutes, which shows that the routine worked as designed. The numbers are small, so the team treated the result as a strong sign, not as proof, and kept measuring during roll-out.

Rolling out through the process owners

Step 10 of the guidebook says the solution is rolled out to the rest of the school “not by the Project Team, but by the concerned stakeholders (process owners)”. Process owners are the people who run the process every day; here, the Grade 3 advisers. The project team keeps guiding them, provides training, and sets up a way for them to give feedback.

For teaching-learning solutions, the guidebook allows the team to share the improved process through the school’s LACs. In the example, the Section B adviser demonstrated the grouping routine in two LAC sessions, and the other advisers practiced it with her. People accept a change more readily when it is explained, when they help shape it and when they are trained for it. The guide to leading change in schools explains how to handle resistance at this stage.

The Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle in school improvement

The PDCA cycle grew from Walter Shewhart’s work on quality control in the 1920s and 1930s. W. Edwards Deming presented the cycle in Japan in 1950, where it became known as PDCA. Deming later preferred the name Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA), to stress studying the results.

The word “Act” means different things in the two models. In PDCA, Act is the decision after checking. In the SIP, the Act phase covers both testing and roll-out.

Standardizing and sustaining the improvement

A change lasts only when it becomes the normal way of working. Five practices help.

1. Write a standard procedure. One page says who does what, when, with which materials and records. In the reading project, each adviser sorts learners into level groups within a week of each assessment. The reading coordinator issues text sets for each level, and the groups read for 20 minutes each day.
2. Make errors hard. Shigeo Shingo, a Japanese industrial engineer, called this mistake-proofing (poka-yoke). In a school, it can be a grouping sheet with the levels already printed, or colored labels that match each text bin to a reading level.
3. Organize the workplace with 5S. The table applies the five Japanese terms to the classroom reading corner.
4. Keep measuring. Track the same two measures each month, and report them when the SPT monitors the project at the middle and end of implementation (Step 11).
5. Close the project. Hand the monitoring to the process owners, record the lessons learned and recognize the team.

Worked example from problem to result

The table sums up the running example. All numbers are illustrative.

The cycle then returns to Assess. Thirty-three learners still read below grade level. The largest theme from the parents, no reading materials at home, becomes the next area of focus. The school cannot buy books for every home, so the team will study what it can control. Two options are take-home texts at each learner’s level and option C, the Grade 6 reading buddies.

What the school head does in root cause analysis

DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024 makes the school head the School SBM Coordinator and says this function “shall not be delegated nor reassigned”. In root cause work, the school head sponsors the project team. The school head does not do the analysis alone, and does not decide the root cause before the evidence is in.

PPSSH strands and Career Stage 1 indicators for root cause analysis

The PPSSH glossary links this work to Strand 1.4. It defines research as “a process of systematic and reflective inquiry”. Its examples include “projects and activities found in the School Improvement Plan, Continuous Improvement Projects, and Impact Studies”.

Career Stage 1 indicators ask aspiring school heads to know, understand and identify. The Domain 1 guide, Leading Strategically explains the whole domain, and the app’s PPSSH guide lists every indicator.

Practice: how the NASH may test this

DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025 says the NASH covers conceptual and situational critical thinking questions aligned with the PPSSH. It uses the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy as its framework. On root cause analysis, expect stems in which a team has data or a draft analysis and the school head must decide the next step. The best answer usually asks for evidence, keeps the focus on causes the school can change, and follows the order of the SIP phases. The three items below are original practice items, not actual or recalled NASH items.

Question 1

Indicator 1.4.1, Research and innovation. Career Stage 1, Situational, Difficult.

A project team studying Monday absences in Grade 5 presents this chain to the school head: “Learners are absent on Mondays because they come home late from weekend trips. They come home late because their parents do not value school. Parents do not value school because they are poor.” The team proposes a seminar for parents on the value of education. What should the school head do?

• A. Accept the chain, since it ends in poverty, which is the deepest cause of all, and approve the seminar for all the Grade 5 parents.
• B. Set the analysis aside, since the absences start at home, and ask each adviser to call the parents of absent learners every Monday morning.
• C. Ask the team to add more whys until the chain reaches a cause the division or the local government must solve, then refer the problem to them.
• D. Ask the team to check each “because” against advisers’ follow-up records and home visits, and to stop at a cause the school can observe and change.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). The chain rests on a judgment about parents that no one checked, and the seminar answers that judgment rather than any observed cause.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Same-day calls are within the school’s control and may reduce absences. But the school head drops the analysis, so the school treats the symptom without knowing why learners stay away.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). It sees that the analysis must go deeper, but it goes outside the school’s control and ends with a referral instead of an action the school can take.
• D (3 points, Relational). It tests each link with evidence the school already has. It also points the team to a direct cause the school can act on, which is what makes a root cause usable.

Why. Indicator 1.4.1 asks aspiring school heads to identify reliable findings for data-driven and evidence-based decisions. The SIP Guidebook says root cause analysis “requires transparency and no predetermined assumptions”, and that the root cause “should be observable and measurable”. A five-whys chain is only as good as the evidence behind each answer, and it should stop at a cause within the school’s control.

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

Sources: DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, School Improvement Plan Guidebook, Activity 3.6 and Annex 8; Rooney and Vanden Heuvel (2004).

Question 2

Indicator 1.7.1, Monitoring and evaluation processes and tools. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

A project team tallied 120 Grade 5 absences over eight Mondays by reason. The counts were: no fare money 42, still with relatives in another barangay 30, sickness 18, helping the family at work 14, arriving late 8, weather 5 and other reasons 3. The team leader proposes seven small projects, one for each reason. What should the school head advise?

• A. Approve all seven projects, since every reason affects some learners, and leaving any reason out would be unfair to the learners it affects.
• B. Focus first on the top two reasons, which explain 60% of the absences, and check them through home visits before designing one project.
• C. Start with sickness, since health comes first, and ask the school’s health coordinator to design a health project for all Grade 5 learners.
• D. Start with the reasons the school can solve fastest, such as late arrival and weather, so the team can report early results to the SPT.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Seven projects spread the team’s time over causes of very different size, and none of them is checked first.
• B (3 points, Relational). It uses the tally as a Pareto chart, puts effort where most absences come from, and checks the top causes before designing a solution.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Health matters, but the choice rests on a value rather than on the data, and sickness explains only 15% of the absences.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). It favors causes within the school’s control, which is sound, but these two reasons explain only 11% of the absences.

Why. Indicator 1.7.1 asks aspiring school heads to know monitoring and evaluation tools that promote learner achievement. A Pareto chart sorts countable causes so that a team can see the few that explain most cases. The SIP Guidebook asks teams to select an area of focus “rather than attempting to solve all the problems at once”. Its Annex 8 also asks whether the team has enough resources to address a cause.

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

Sources: DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, School Improvement Plan Guidebook, Activity 3.5 and Annex 8; Joseph Juran on the Pareto principle.

Question 3

Indicator 1.2.1, School planning and implementation. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

A project team piloted daily small-group reading in one Grade 3 section for eight weeks. In the pilot section, learners reading below grade level fell from 16 to 9. In the three other sections, they fell from 45 to 42. The same assessment was used before and after. The pilot adviser now wants to stop keeping records because “it obviously works.” What is the best next step?

• A. Have the pilot adviser share the routine with the other Grade 3 advisers through LAC sessions, write it as a standard procedure, and keep tracking the same measures.
• B. Report the project as a success in the School Report Card, close the project, and assign the project team to a new priority improvement area next year.
• C. Roll the routine out to all sections at once, with the project team members leading the reading groups in the other three sections themselves.
• D. Repeat the pilot in the same section for another eight weeks to rule out chance before telling the other Grade 3 advisers about the routine.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (3 points, Relational). The process owners learn the routine from a peer who used it, the routine becomes a written standard, and the same measures show whether it works in every section.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). It closes the project before roll-out, so the improvement stays in one section and no one checks whether it lasts.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). It rolls the solution out, but through the project team instead of the advisers who run the reading period, so the routine may stop when the project ends.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). Caution about small numbers is reasonable, but repeating the test in the same section delays the other learners and tells the team nothing new about the other sections.

Why. Indicator 1.2.1 asks aspiring school heads to understand the phases of developing and implementing school plans. In the Act phase of DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, a successful test is communicated to the process owners. The roll-out is done “not by the Project Team, but by the concerned stakeholders (process owners)”, and teaching-learning solutions may be shared through the school’s LACs. Monitoring continues, because the next cycle starts from these data.

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. 44, s. 2015, School Improvement Plan Guidebook, Steps 9 to 11.

More items on every domain are in the NASH practice questions with answers, and the app has timed practice sets.

Frequently asked questions

What is root cause analysis in the DepEd School Improvement Plan?

Root cause analysis is the Assess-phase activity in which a project team finds the deepest cause of a focused problem in a school process. DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 places it after listening to learners, walking the process and writing a focused problem statement (Activity 3.6). The team then presents the root cause to the SPT and writes it in the Planning Worksheet before it chooses solutions.

What tools does DepEd suggest for root cause analysis?

The SIP Guidebook names three diagram tools: the fishbone (Ishikawa) diagram, the why-why diagram and the problem tree. Its Annex 8 suggests using only one of them, then prioritizing root causes by tallying, triangulation and a five-question checklist. Schools also use Pareto charts, process maps and affinity diagrams to organize the evidence.

What is the difference between a root cause and a symptom?

A symptom is the result people see, such as low reading scores, while a root cause is the condition in a school process that produces it. If the school fixes only the symptom, for example with extra drills, the problem returns. If it fixes the root cause, such as a reading routine that ignores learners’ levels, the problem becomes smaller and does not return.

How do you write a focused problem statement for the SIP?

Write one sentence that gives, with data, how big the problem is, how often it happens, where and when. Leave out causes, solutions and blame. Here is one from a reading team:

In 16 reading periods observed over two weeks, the 61 Grade 3 learners below grade level each read aloud alone for 1 minute per period on average.

What are the categories of a fishbone diagram for a school problem?

Common categories for a school fishbone diagram are learners, teachers and teaching, materials and resources, process and schedule, measurement and records, environment, and home and community. Choose four to seven that fit the problem. The SIP Guidebook’s sample uses four: procedures, people, equipment and materials.

More on school leadership

This post is part of a series on what a school head does under the DepEd rules in force today. The other posts, in reading order:

• RA 9155 Duties of DepEd School Heads: 12 Areas Explained
• Leadership vs Management for School Heads: Five Practices
• DepEd Revised SBM: DO 007, s. 2024 and the Self-Assessment
• DepEd School Improvement Plan (SIP): Steps, AIP and SRC
• Organizational Diagnosis Models in Schools: 7S, SWOT, PESTLE
• Change Management in Schools: A Guide for DepEd School Heads
• DepEd ILAW Lesson Plan, DO 016, s. 2026: School Head’s Role
• DepEd Grading System, DO 015, s. 2026: School Head’s Role
• DepEd Contextualization, Localization and Indigenization
• DepEd Instructional Supervision: Observing and Coaching
• DepEd Learning Action Cell (LAC) Guidelines: DO 35, s. 2016
• DepEd PMES for Teachers: DM 089, s. 2025 for School Heads
• DepEd Enhanced ALS, Inclusive Education and Special Programs
• Human Resource Management for DepEd School Heads
• DepEd School MOOE: Allowable Expenses and Liquidation
• RA 6713 for DepEd School Heads: Ethics and Internal Control
• Leadership Styles of School Heads: What the Evidence Says
• Instructional Leadership for DepEd School Heads
• Principal, Head Teacher or Teacher-in-Charge in DepEd
• OPCRF for DepEd School Heads in 2026: What Applies Now
• RA 9155 at 25: Why Shared Governance Has Not Happened
• On the app: The roles of a school head, the six roles in one guide, Is the School Improvement Plan working?, a policy review of the SIP, and the PPSSH guide

Sources

• DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, Guidelines on the Enhanced School Improvement Planning (SIP) Process and the School Report Card (SRC), with the enclosed guidelines and the School Improvement Plan Guidebook (Activities 3.2 to 3.7, Steps 5, 6, 9 and 10, and Annexes 6, 7 and 8).
• DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024, Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Revised School-Based Management (SBM) System, including Annex A, the SBM Self-Assessment Checklist.
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads, and the PPSSH booklet with its glossary.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025, Administration of the National Assessment for School Heads.
• James J. Rooney and Lee N. Vanden Heuvel, “Root Cause Analysis for Beginners”, Quality Progress 37(7), July 2004, pages 45 to 53.
• Kaoru Ishikawa, Guide to Quality Control (Asian Productivity Organization), on the cause-and-effect diagram.
• Taiichi Ohno, Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production (Productivity Press, 1988), on the five whys.
• Joseph M. Juran, Quality Control Handbook (McGraw-Hill, 1951), on the Pareto principle.
• Walter A. Shewhart, Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control (1939); W. Edwards Deming, The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education (MIT, 1993), on the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle.
• Frank B. Gilbreth and Lillian M. Gilbreth, “Process Charts”, paper presented to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1921.
• Shigeo Shingo, Zero Quality Control: Source Inspection and the Poka-yoke System (Productivity Press, 1986).
• Jiro Kawakita, the KJ method for organizing ideas (first published in Japanese in 1967).

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 and its School Improvement Plan Guidebook; DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020 and the PPSSH; DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025; Rooney and Vanden Heuvel (2004); Ishikawa; Ohno (1988); Juran (1951); Shewhart (1939); Deming (1993).