The School Governance Council (SGC) Functionality Assessment Tool is the Department of Education’s (DepEd) checklist for deciding whether a public school’s SGC does the work that DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022 gives it. It turns the twelve “Indicators of Functionality” in Part VII of that order into Yes-or-No questions, names the documents that prove each Yes (the means of verification, or MOVs), and counts a council as functional when at least 10 of the 12 indicators are met on valid minimum MOVs.
The tool comes from the Bureau of Human Resource and Organizational Development-School Effectiveness Division (BHROD-SED), through memoranda of the Office of the Undersecretary for Human Resource and Organizational Development (since 2026, Human Resource and Organizational Development and Infrastructure). The collection now open is for public elementary schools: it opened on September 29, 2026 under Memorandum DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750 of September 22, 2026, and its online form closes on March 31, 2027. Public secondary schools answered the same twelve indicators from 2022 to 2024; the last version for them is Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2024-0696 of April 11, 2024.
The rules below are those in force on November 13, 2026. How a council is formed, elected and run is in School Governance Council (SGC): Complete DepEd Guide.
Key findings
- The tool has twelve indicators, all from DO 026, s. 2022, and fifteen minimum documents cover them. Eight indicators measure the SGC as a structure for shared governance and four as a feedback mechanism; seven have sub-indicators, nineteen in all. Five indicators turn on an SGC resolution, four on minutes of a meeting, and one each on a notice of meeting, a letter to the school head and a report; three ask for a second document (DO 026, s. 2022, Part VII; DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 2).
- A council is functional at 10 of 12. It must “comply with at least 10 out of the 12 (at least 80%) Functionality Indicators based on the minimum MOVs submitted”. Only primary sub-indicators and indicators without sub-indicators earn a point, and the count that decides is of the MOVs the division finds valid, not the school’s own (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. Nos. 1 and 2).
- In 2026 a resolution needs wet signatures, and DepEd’s formats are samples. Validators accept a resolution “signed by the voting members and the School Head using wet signatures”, count MOVs “produced or created from School Year 2022–2023 onward”, and let a council modify the sample formats (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 1, User Guide).
- The division validates, the region certifies, the Central Office analyzes. A division composite team chaired by the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent validates each school’s MOVs; the regional team monitors, spot-checks and certifies, and “is not permitted to make changes to the validation status” (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. Nos. 3 and 5).
- Elementary schools answer from September 29, 2026 to March 31, 2027. The school head facilitates, each school submits once, and the MOVs go into one shared Google Drive folder with labeled sub-folders and a signed Validity Form. Division certifications are due on May 5, 2027 and regional certifications on May 14, 2027 (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8).
- Nearly half of the secondary schools that took part had a functional SGC in 2024. At the endline, 9,498 of 10,096 secondary schools took part (94.1%) and 4,649 had functional councils: 48.9% of the schools that took part and 46.0% of all 10,096 (Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2025-0349, February 11, 2025).
- DepEd’s ten-year plan expects every public school to have a functional council by 2028. The Quality Basic Education Development Plan 2025-2035 puts the share at 9.69% in School Year (SY) 2023-2024 and targets 100% in 2028 (Q-BEDP, Annex 6).
What the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool is
DO 026, s. 2022, issued on June 17, 2022, requires every public elementary and secondary school to establish an SGC. Its Part VII, Monitoring and Evaluation, has BHROD-SED “evaluate and review the implementation of the SGC” and “regularly monitor the compliance of the schools with this policy”, in coordination with the School Governance and Operations Division (SGOD) of each Schools Division Office (SDO) and the Field Technical Assistance Division (FTAD) of each Regional Office (RO). The same part gives the yardstick: “In evaluating the performance of SGCs, the BHROD-SED shall use a set of functionality indicators”, eight for the council as a structure for shared governance and four for the council as a feedback mechanism.
The tool is how BHROD-SED applies that yardstick. Its opening paragraph says BHROD-SED “shall conduct a monitoring and evaluation of SGCs through the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool”, and that the result “shall be used as information in identifying priority areas that may need support and assistance from the different governance levels” (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 2; the secondary tool opens with the same words, DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Encl. No. 1). The tool is a diagnosis for the school, the division, the region and the Central Office (CO). No text makes it a ranking or an award.
Three kinds of documents stand behind it, and they do not weigh the same:
| Document | What it is | What it settles |
|---|---|---|
| DO 026, s. 2022 | A DepEd Order signed by the Secretary | The council’s functions, meetings, decisions and the twelve indicators of functionality |
| DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750 (elementary schools), with its User Guide, and DM-OUHROD-2024-0696 (secondary schools) | Memoranda of the Undersecretary for Human Resource and Organizational Development (in 2026, Human Resource and Organizational Development and Infrastructure) | The sub-indicators, the MOVs, the 10-of-12 mark, who submits, who validates, what a validator accepts and by when |
| FAQ decks, slide decks and the SGC To-Do Calendar | BHROD-SED’s explanations | How DepEd reads the tool; where one goes beyond the order, the order governs |
The User Guide is part of the 2026 memorandum: it is Enclosure No. 1, in two volumes, “Prepare and Respond” for schools and “Validate and Monitor” for divisions and regions, and the memorandum has the school head and the division follow it (Encl. No. 5). What is cited from it here is the User Guide, Version 2, as posted in October 2026.
The memoranda implement Part VII. They add sub-indicators and MOVs to the order’s indicators, and they do not amend the order. The minutes of BHROD-SED’s meeting with the regions on February 13, 2026 record the same reading: the order “already specifies the indicators for achieving functionality”, and the memoranda “only provided the MOVs to guide schools in assessing their functionality”.
As of November 13, 2026, DepEd has issued no order amending DO 026, s. 2022. Part VII also has BHROD-SED “conduct a periodic policy review every three years”. The rollout memorandum of September 2026 still lists policy reviews among the Central Office’s tasks (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 4), and the tool it encloses applies the order as issued in 2022.
The count matters beyond the school. The Basic Education Development Plan 2030, adopted by DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2022, lists the “Proportion of schools with functional SGC” among its indicators, with BHROD as the responsible body. The tool is what produces that number.
Who answers the SGC tool
Who answers depends on the collection.
| 2026 to 2027 collection | 2022 to 2024 collections | |
|---|---|---|
| Schools | Public elementary schools | Public secondary schools |
| Governing memorandum | DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, September 22, 2026 | DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, April 11, 2024, and the memoranda before it |
| Who facilitates in the school | The School Head | The Designated Co-Chairperson |
| Who must be consulted | The members of the SGC | The members of the SGC and the School Head |
| Submissions | One submission per school | Re-accomplishment allowed from January 2024 |
Elementary schools, 2026 to 2027. “For 2026, the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool shall be implemented exclusively for public elementary schools” (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750). The facilitator is the school head: “The School Head shall facilitate the accomplishment of the tool. He/she shall ensure that members of the SGC are consulted in answering the tool” (Encl. No. 3). Each division has one form, in which a school selects its School ID and name and its curricular offering (User Guide, Vol. 1, pp. 31 and 36). The memorandum does not say how an integrated school with elementary and secondary levels answers; such a school should confirm with its division’s SGC focal person in the SGOD.
Secondary schools in 2026. They do not answer the national form this year. The memorandum keeps them under “sustained and strengthened technical assistance, including validation and monitoring”, through “appropriate modalities based on the needs and capacities” of the regional and division composite teams, and its process flow has each division enter “updated data on the functionality of Secondary Schools’ SGCs” in its monitoring sheet (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, and its Encl. No. 3). A secondary school may therefore still be asked for its MOVs by its division, in the way the division chooses.
Secondary schools, 2022 to 2024. DepEd’s FAQ decks for the endline answer the question “Who shall accomplish” the online tool with “Secondary Schools only. This includes integrated schools with JHS and/or SHS.” The 2022 orientation deck adds that an annex secondary school with its own SGC answers separately. Inside the school, “The Designated Co-Chairperson shall facilitate the accomplishment of the tool. He/she shall ensure that members of the SGC and the School Head are consulted in answering the tool” (DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Encl. No. 2). The Designated Co-Chairperson is the school representative the school head chooses for the council (DO 026, s. 2022, Part V.C).
Answering the online form and preparing the MOVs are different jobs. BHROD-SED’s 2026 survey form put it this way: “accomplishing the SGC Online Tool is different from preparing the requirements or MOVs”, and the preparation should be “a collective effort of the entire council”. Two schools that share a compound and a school head but have separate school IDs keep separate councils and answer separately; BHROD-SED’s January 2026 presentation to regional coordinators gives that answer, citing the order’s rule that a council carries the name of its school (DO 026, s. 2022, Part V.G).
How the tool is built: purposes, indicators and MOVs
The tool has five layers, from the order’s purposes down to the documents.
| Layer | Count | What it is |
|---|---|---|
| Main purposes | 2 | “To provide structure for shared governance” and “To provide a feedback mechanism” |
| Functions | 6 | The three functions DO 026 lists under each purpose (Part V.A and V.B) |
| Functionality indicators (FI) | 12 | The order’s indicators of functionality (Part VII), each with “a brief description on how the Functionality Indicator can be observed” |
| Sub-indicators | 19, in 7 indicators | “the specific activities that enable the achievement of their corresponding functionality indicator”: 7 primary and 12 other |
| MOVs | Minimum and additional | The documents that prove a Yes |
The indicators are grouped under the functions:
| Purpose | Function (DO 026, s. 2022, Part V.A and V.B) | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| Structure for shared governance | 1. A collective and consultative body for school plans, programs, activities and strategic directions | FI1, FI2, FI3 |
| 2. The overall coordinating body for the work of the school’s committees and organizations | FI4, FI5 | |
| 3. A platform for bayanihan and stakeholder participation, with equal opportunity for all | FI6, FI7, FI8 | |
| Feedback mechanism | 1. Helps the school improve and sustain its feedback system | FI9, FI10 |
| 2. Assists the school in ensuring transparency in its operations and performance | FI11 | |
| 3. Recommends ways of improving the quality of basic education services and school performance | FI12 |
Seven indicators have sub-indicators: FI1, FI2, FI3, FI4, FI5, FI6 and FI11. Each has one primary sub-indicator, which the tool defines as one of “the sub-indicators that determine the achievement of their corresponding Functionality Indicators, and thus must be met”. Six of them also have other sub-indicators, “which are the sub-indicators that SGCs may comply with, only when the Primary Sub-Indicator is met and applicable”. FI5 has a primary sub-indicator and nothing else. The other five indicators (FI7, FI8, FI9, FI10 and FI12) have no sub-indicators and are answered directly.
Every primary sub-indicator, other sub-indicator and stand-alone indicator has two lists of documents. The minimum MOVs are what a Yes needs. The additional MOVs “may be submitted when available to showcase its advanced practices” (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 2).
When an SGC is functional: the 10-of-12 mark
The rule is one sentence: “For an SGC to be considered functional, the Council must be able to comply with at least 10 out of the 12 (at least 80%) Functionality Indicators based on the minimum MOVs submitted” (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 2). The secondary tool of 2024 has it word for word (DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Encl. No. 1).
The tool then lists what a functional council shows “at a minimum”:
- “Functionality Indicators without sub-indicators are observed (Yes to all Functionality Indicators without sub-indicators)”;
- “Primary Sub-Indicators, under Functionality Indicators with sub-indicators, are observed (Yes to all Primary Sub-Indicators)”;
- “Minimum MOVs are submitted.”
Read alone, “Yes to all” would mean twelve of twelve. The User Guide settles how the count works. The minimum MOVs of the seven primary sub-indicators and the five indicators without sub-indicators make twelve: “These 12 MOVs serve as the basis for scoring”, and “A school that obtains a score of 10 or above is classified as functional” (Vol. 2, p. 12). The secondary collection’s validation sheet said the same: “Every valid MOV for Primary Sub-Indicators counts as 1 in the Final Score. To be FUNCTIONAL SGC, the school must accomplish 10/12 VALID Primary-Sub-Indicators” (DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Encl. No. 3). The three lines say how an indicator earns its point; the mark is ten points.
| Kind of indicator | Indicators | How it earns its point |
|---|---|---|
| With sub-indicators | FI1, FI2, FI3, FI4, FI5, FI6, FI11 | Yes to the primary sub-indicator, with a valid minimum MOV |
| Without sub-indicators | FI7, FI8, FI9, FI10, FI12 | Yes to the indicator, with a valid minimum MOV |
Four consequences follow.
- Other sub-indicators add no points. In the 2026 form they are “without corresponding points” and “optional” (User Guide, Vol. 1, p. 38). The tool calls them “recommended to be attained to further strengthen the SGC’s functionality”. For the secondary collection, DepEd’s FAQ deck of April 15, 2024 gave the same answer: “Only the Primary Sub-indicators are required to be achieved in order for the SGC to be considered functional. However, achievement of the Other Sub-indicators is very much welcome.”
- A No on a primary sub-indicator closes that indicator. “If the Primary Sub-Indicator is not met (NO), no need to comply with the Other Sub-Indicators” of the same indicator.
- A No needs no documents. “If NO, no need to prepare or present any MOVs.”
- A council can miss two indicators and still be functional. The tool does not say which two; any ten will do.
A school’s own count is not its result. In both collections the division’s validators decide which of the twelve scoring MOVs are valid, and only those count. The secondary collection showed how far the two counts can be apart. After answering the online form, a secondary school could view its score, but BHROD-SED’s April 2024 orientation deck warned that it “may, however, be different from the final score as the information and MOVs submitted are still subject to the validation of your Division and Region”. The division’s sheet carried both: an initial score from the school’s answers and a final score from validated MOVs. On the sample sheet printed with the 2024 memorandum, one school with an initial score of 12 and a final score of 11 is “FUNCTIONAL”; another with 11 and 7 is “NOT YET FUNCTIONAL”; a third with 12 and no validation yet stands at 0 and “UNVALIDATED” (DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Encl. No. 3).
The twelve functionality indicators and their MOVs
The self-check holds the tool’s full wording, every sub-indicator and both MOV lists.
Self-check
Would your council be counted functional?
Twelve functionality indicators under two purposes. A council is counted functional when it meets at least 10 of the 12 on the minimum documents; where an indicator has sub-indicators, only its primary one counts. Answer for your own council: nothing is saved or sent.
0of 12 indicators met
Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2024-0696 (April 11, 2024), Enclosure No. 1, SGC Functionality Assessment Tool for Secondary Schools; Memorandum DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750 (September 22, 2026), Enclosure No. 2; DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022, Part VII
The minimum MOVs for the twelve points are few, and most are papers a working council produces anyway:
| Minimum MOV that earns the point | Indicators | Count |
|---|---|---|
| An SGC resolution | FI3, FI7 (or another document), FI8, FI11, FI12 | 5 |
| Minutes of a meeting | FI2, FI4, FI6, FI10 | 4 |
| A notice of meeting | FI1 | 1 |
| A letter to the School Head | FI5 | 1 |
| An SGC report | FI9 | 1 |
Three indicators list a second minimum MOV with no “or” between the two: a concept note or project brief for FI6, documentation of the program for FI10, and an action plan for FI11. A council that answers Yes to all twelve therefore files fifteen documents at the least. In the 2026 collection a signed Validity Form goes with them.
FI1: Members know and exercise their roles
The order’s first indicator is that the council “has members who are informed of and given the opportunity to exercise their roles and responsibilities in the council” (Part VII.A.1). The tool reads this as participation: “A functional SGC has members who participate in the decision-making process.”
The point rests on meetings being called. The primary sub-indicator is “The SGC has called meetings in order to create a venue for its decision-making process”, and its minimum MOV is a “Notice of meeting (at least 1 of 4 Regular Meetings)”. The four regular meetings are the order’s: “At the minimum, SGC meetings shall be held quarterly” (Part V.M). The notice has its own rule there: it “shall be issued by the Secretary to all SGC members at least a week prior to the said meeting”, and both Co-Chairpersons “sign communications, notice of meetings, and other documents of the SGC” (Part V.E).
The other sub-indicators ask whether members “have been inducted and oriented” (induction certificates for the 7 to 15 voting members, or a resolution on the official list of voting members) and whether the council has an organizational chart.
FI2: The council is consulted on school policies
The order’s indicator is that the council “establishes position as a consultative body in developing school policies” (Part VII.A.2). The tool ties it to planning. The primary sub-indicator is “The SGC has participated actively in the formulation of the SIP/AIP and other DepEd programs, projects, and activities”, proved by “Minutes of Meeting with SPT on SIP / AIP (at least 1 meeting)”. The SIP is the School Improvement Plan, the AIP the Annual Implementation Plan, and the SPT the School Planning Team.
This is the first of the council’s thirteen specific functions: to “participate actively in the formulation and implementation of the SIP and other DepEd programs, projects, and activities”, and the thirteenth, to “work collaboratively with the SPT” (DO 026, s. 2022, Part V, Specific Functions, items 1 and 13). A council that has never sat with the planning team cannot answer Yes, however often it meets. DepEd School Improvement Plan (SIP): Steps, AIP and SRC covers the planning cycle the meeting belongs to.
The other sub-indicators cover recommendations passed to the School Head (an SGC resolution) and meetings “on the importance of upholding the rights of the child” with the Child Protection Committee, the Child Protection Unit or similar bodies (minutes).
FI3: Regular meetings that end in decisions
The order’s indicator is that the council “conducts regular SGC meetings as prescribed herein to discuss matters concerning SIP, AIP, and other DepEd programs, projects, and activities” (Part VII.A.3). The tool does not count meetings for the point. It counts a decision: the primary sub-indicator is “The SGC has decided matters through a resolution, signed by all SGC voting members”, and the minimum MOV is “SGC Resolution (at least 1)”.
The order’s rule on decisions is in Part V.M: “All recommendations of the SGC shall be made by two-thirds (2/3) consensus of all SGC members”, and “The decision shall be in writing, signed by the SGC members and posted on the transparency board.” The Secretary gives the school’s organizations a copy “at least a week after the approval”.
The three other sub-indicators are about the meetings themselves: agendas that support the SIP, the AIP and school priorities; a quorum at every regular meeting; and minutes. All three are proved by minutes of at least one regular meeting. The order has the Secretary “keep the minutes and all other records of the SGC” and give members copies “within two weeks after the conduct of meeting” (Part V.E).
FI4: Meetings that align the school’s organizations
The order’s indicator is that the council “organizes meetings with and attends meetings by different school committees and organizations to ensure alignment of work” (Part VII.A.4). The primary sub-indicator is “The SGC has organized meetings with different school stakeholders to harmonize proposed and existing programs, projects, and activities”, proved by minutes of at least one such meeting.
The matching function is to “organize meetings, through the School Head”, for “harmonizing proposed and existing programs, projects, and activities” of the school’s committees and its partners (Part V, Specific Functions, item 4). The words “through the School Head” matter: the council “shall always coordinate and act through the School Head in the conduct of its affairs” (Part V.M, Limitations of SGC Authority, item 3). The PTA, the learner government, the faculty club, the School Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Committee and the Child Protection Committee keep their own plans; this meeting is where the plans are set side by side. School Governance Council, PTA and Partners: A Guide covers the bodies the council coordinates.
The other sub-indicators ask whether the council was represented in meetings that those bodies organized, and whether it has discussed with stakeholders “its role as oversight on school planning and resource use”.
FI5: The council’s direction reaches the School Head
The order’s indicator is that the council “coordinates with the School Head the concerns of the different school committees and organizations to synchronize programs, projects, and activities in the school” (Part VII.A.5). The tool describes a functional council as “a conduit between the different school committees and organizations and the school management”.
FI5 has one sub-indicator, the primary: “The Co-Chairpersons have communicated the direction of the SGC to the School Head.” The minimum MOV is a “Copy of the communication / transmittal letter to the School Head reflecting the direction of the SGC”. The duty is in the roles of both Co-Chairpersons, who “discuss with the School Head the direction of the SGC” (Part V.E).
The additional MOVs come from the school head’s side: a document from school management that cites the council’s recommendation, or the school head’s acknowledgment of the council in a State of the School Address (SOSA), a speech or a newsletter. They mirror the school head’s own duty to “explain to the SGC members the reasons, potential risks, or effects of matters in case of disapproval, partial approval or modification of the recommendations” (Part VI.A, item 1).
FI6: Stakeholder-initiated programs
The order’s indicator is that the council “partakes in the conduct of needs-based and appropriate stakeholder-initiated programs and activities i.e., Brigada Eskwela, Gulayan Sa Paaralan, etc.” (Part VII.A.6). The primary sub-indicator asks for involvement at the planning stage: “The SGC has been involved in the development of stakeholder-initiated programs and activities.”
FI6 lists two minimum MOVs: “Minutes of Meeting with stakeholders on stakeholder-initiated programs and activities (at least 1 meeting)” and a “Concept note / Project brief, or similar document (at least 1)”. Photographs of council members painting a fence during Brigada Eskwela are not among them; the tool looks for the council’s hand in designing the activity. Brigada Eskwela Guidelines 2026: Manual, Forms and Rules covers the program’s own rules.
The other sub-indicators are monitoring and evaluation of those programs (a report) and linkages: “The SGC has established linkages with other stakeholders and/or referred potential partners to the School Head”, proved by a resolution on the referral. The wording follows the order, under which interested partners are referred “to the School Head who is authorized to formalize agreements with partners”, and the council “shall not enter into or be bound by any contractual transactions for and on behalf of the school” (Part V.M).
FI7: Recommendations to the Local School Board
The order’s indicator is that the council “recommends policies and programs to the Local School Board (LSB) to strengthen support of and relationship with the LGU” (Part VII.A.7). FI7 has no sub-indicators. The minimum MOV is an “SGC Resolution recommending the SIP to LSB”, or “Any document recommending policy / program to the LSB, based on the SIP”. The additional MOV shows the route: “Proof of endorsement of the SGC Resolution to the SDS and transmittal to the LSB”.
The function behind it is to “recommend to the school, as well as to the LGU through the Local School Board (LSB)”, “relevant local school programs and projects consistent with national policies” (Part V, Specific Functions, item 3). The recommendation leaves the school through the School Head, since the council acts through the head in all its affairs, and the tool’s additional MOV shows the resolution endorsed to the Schools Division Superintendent (SDS) and transmitted to the board. Local School Boards and the Special Education Fund explains what the board may fund and when it budgets.
At the 2022 baseline, FI7 was the indicator met by the fewest councils, according to BHROD-SED’s January 2026 presentation of the results. The document it needs is a single resolution, or another written recommendation, that rests on the SIP.
FI8: Inclusive representation
The order’s indicator is that the council “involves the different sectors to ensure inclusive representation of stakeholders in the council” (Part VII.A.8). FI8 has no sub-indicators. The minimum MOV is an “SGC Resolution on involving various sectors”; the additional MOVs are an official list of members with expanded membership and a resolution “on inclusiveness, diversity, equity, and accessibility”.
The order’s membership rules are what the resolution acts on. The four ex-officio members complete a council of 7 to 15 voting members from the school’s organizations and the community, including school-based Alternative Learning System teachers and learners; in a school in an ancestral domain or with learners from Indigenous Cultural Communities, “a community representative duly chosen by the ICC’s customary governance structure” has a slot; and the council is “encouraged to expand its membership” with non-voting members once the voting membership is complete (Part V.D). The school head’s matching task is to “establish inclusive school and community networks” (Part VI.A, item 4).
FI9: Taking part in assemblies and stakeholder events
The first feedback indicator is that the council “participates in school general assemblies, PTA conferences, stakeholder convergence, SOSA, and other stakeholder engagement activities and initiatives” (Part VII.B.1). FI9 has no sub-indicators. Attendance alone does not earn the point: the minimum MOV is an “SGC Report on the issues / concerns raised during school activities / events”. Photo documentation is only an additional MOV.
The council attends in order to listen. The tool’s description is that a functional council “has encouraged open communication among school internal and external stakeholders in order to gather feedback essential to making informed decisions and recommendations”. The order’s function is to “attend pertinent school meetings and assemblies in which all sectors are properly represented” (Part V, Specific Functions, item 8). A one-page report after each assembly, listing what parents and learners raised, is the document.
FI10: Forums the council itself organizes
The order’s indicator is that the council “organizes discussions and forums that invite and inspire stakeholders to engage and participate” (Part VII.B.2). FI9 is about events others run; FI10 is about the council’s own. It has no sub-indicators and two minimum MOVs: “Documentation of the organized / conducted program (at least 1)” and “Minutes of the meetings where issues / concerns are discussed”.
The order’s function is to “conduct orientation and advocacy activities on the value and benefits of education, complementary roles of parents, community, industry and LGUs in education, and children’s rights in education and welfare” (Part V, Specific Functions, item 7). One additional MOV refers to programs “following the SGC’s Calendar of Events (as provided by CO)”. BHROD-SED released an SGC To-Do Calendar by Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2025-1774 on June 30, 2025; the SGC guide sets it out quarter by quarter.
FI11: Transparency through the SRC and the transparency board
The order’s indicator is that the council “assists the school in communicating information to the school stakeholders through the SRC, transparency board, etc.” (Part VII.B.3). The primary sub-indicator is “The SGC has promoted access to school data and information through Transparency Board, SRC, and other reports on operations and performance of school programs and resource management.” School Report Card and Transparency Board: DepEd Rules sets out what each must hold and how often it is renewed.
FI11 lists two minimum MOVs: an “SGC Resolution on access to information (school data and information)” and the “SGC’s Action Plan on promoting access to information”. A photograph of the transparency board is an additional MOV; the point is earned by the council’s decision and plan.
The order defines the School Report Card (SRC) as “the reporting tool that provides stakeholders a snapshot of the school’s current condition and performance” and the transparency board as “a publicly accessible tool” where “information on the sources, intended use, and actual utilization of school funds, among others, shall be posted and updated regularly” (Part III). The council is to “support the dissemination of pertinent school data and information” through them, and its Secretary prepares quarterly reports of the council’s activities for both (Part V, Specific Functions, item 6; Part V.E). One limit applies: the council “shall not disclose confidential data such as learner records and other personal information” (Part V.M). DepEd School MOOE: Allowable Expenses and Liquidation covers what the board must show about school funds.
The other sub-indicator, FI11B, is a resolution on an alternative communication platform, such as a social media page, email or text blast, or printed materials.
FI12: Suggestions that improve the SIP and AIP
The order’s last indicator is that the council “suggests ways of improving the quality of SIP, AIP, and other DepEd programs, projects, and activities” (Part VII.B.4). FI12 has no sub-indicators. The minimum MOV is an “SGC Resolution on the recommendation on ways of improving the quality of SIP, AIP, and other DepEd programs, projects, and activities (at least 1)”.
FI2 asks whether the council helped write the plan; FI12 asks whether it gave feedback on how the plan is going. The order’s function is to “communicate to the SPT and project teams the learners’ and stakeholders’ feedback and satisfaction on the physical and financial accomplishment of the SIP and Annual Implementation Plans (AIP) and provide recommendations on improving efficiency and quality of the school services” (Part V, Specific Functions, item 2). The school head then refers an approved recommendation “to the appropriate committee/association/organization or office/person” (Part VI.A, item 5).
What counts as a valid MOV
For elementary schools in the 2026 collection, the validator’s test is printed in Volume 2 of the User Guide (p. 6). An MOV is valid if it:
- “Clearly pertains to the SGC as mandated in DO 26, s. 2022.”
- “Follows the prescribed organizational structure under DepEd Order No. 26 s. 2022.”
- “Is within the required school year/coverage period.”
- “Shows clear evidence that the SGC spearheaded or participated in the activity.”
- “Contains complete documentation (signatures, quorum, attendance, photos, resolutions, etc.).”
- “Is the correct document uploaded for the specific indicator.”
The guide then lists the common errors (Vol. 2, pp. 7 to 9). With Volume 1, it answers the questions councils ask most:
| Question | Answer in the 2026 collection | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Must the school use DepEd’s templates? | No. “the sample format of the MOVs may be modified and contextualized in accordance with the preferences of the SGCs”, “without affecting the validation process of the MOVs”. | User Guide, Vol. 1, p. 5 |
| Which period’s documents count? | “Only Means of Verification (MOVs) produced or created from School Year 2022–2023 onward shall be considered valid.” Validators treat an activity “conducted June 17, 2022 onwards”, the date of the order, as within coverage, and one from 2018 to 2021 as outside it. | Vol. 1, p. 7; Vol. 2, p. 8 |
| Who signs a resolution? | “Resolutions must be duly approved and signed by the voting members and the School Head using wet signatures.” A resolution without them is invalid. | Vol. 2, p. 9 |
| May other documents be signed electronically? | Yes: “Electronic signatures may be accepted for all documents except resolutions.” Missing or incomplete signatures make a document invalid. | Vol. 2, p. 9 |
| What must minutes and reports show? | What was done, when and where, who took part and what was decided, with complete minutes and signed attendance. “No quorum specified” and a missing signed attendance sheet are listed as errors. | Vol. 2, p. 8 |
| What must the council be called? | The School Governance Council. A document that labels the body “School Governing Council”, or the School Head “Chairman”, is invalid. | Vol. 2, pp. 7 and 8 |
| May another organization’s document be used? | No. Documents “from PTA, SSG, or other committees” that are “presented as SGC evidence” are invalid; the document must show that the council convened, approved, led or co-led the activity. | Vol. 2, p. 7 |
| Who signs a notice of meeting? | The Secretary issues it, and both Co-Chairpersons sign notices of meetings. | DO 026, s. 2022, Part V.M and V.E |
SGC MOV Validation: Why Documents Are Marked Invalid takes each of the guide’s eight errors in turn, with the part of the order behind it and the fix before a document is uploaded.
On signatures the guide asks for more than DO 026, s. 2022 does. The order requires a decision “signed by the SGC members”; it does not name the School Head as a signatory or bar electronic signatures. The order governs whether the council’s decision is valid, and the guide governs what a validator counts.
The packaging. The council is to “consolidate required documents per indicator, separating Minimum MOVs and Additional MOVs”, as PDF files (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 3); the guide’s label list says which documents to merge into one file (Vol. 1, pp. 8 to 19). The school creates one main folder named “SGC MOVs (2026 Roll-Out)” in its official DepEd account, sets it so that anyone with the link can view it, and places inside it 44 labeled sub-folders: one for each sub-indicator’s minimum MOVs and one for its additional ones (FI3B, FI3C and FI3D share one folder and one merged file), and one for the Validity Form. The main folder’s link is what the school enters in the form (Vol. 1, pp. 21 to 30 and 40). The Validity Form is “signed by the SGC Officer and the School Head”, and with it the respondent confirms “the accuracy, completeness, and authenticity of the information submitted” (Vol. 1, p. 41). The form itself has lines for the Designated Co-Chairperson, the Elected Co-Chairperson and the Secretary, who prepare it, and for the School Head, who approves it. How to Submit the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool takes a school through the documents, the folders, the link and the form, one step at a time.
In the secondary collection of 2023 to 2024 the test was shorter. The validator checked “if the MOV submitted by the school is correct”: “If the MOV satisfies the minimum requirement for the Sub-indicator, tick box under ‘Valid’” (DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Encl. No. 3). That memorandum printed no period for MOVs. DepEd’s FAQ deck of April 15, 2024 answered “Can we use our own school templates in preparing our MOVs?” with “No, we need to use the prescribed template of BHROD-SED.” (No. 11), though it let councils keep MOVs “validated as functional last baseline survey” (No. 10) and told them to “feel free to make changes on the template” (No. 8). It also said that once a council is organized, “the co-chairpersons must approve the Notice of Meeting, and may be ‘Noted by the principal’” (No. 13). MOVs were uploaded in the form itself. An additional MOV that “only differs in number or quantity” from the minimum went into one file with it; with a wrong School ID or school name, “The MOVs will not appear/be recognized” in the division’s sheet; a submitted MOV could not be changed or removed; and the form ended with a “signed and approved validity form” (BHROD-SED orientation deck, April 24, 2024; FAQ deck, January 2024, No. 5).
How the tool is submitted and validated
An answered tool passes through four levels of office. The figure shows both flows: the 2026 roll-out for elementary schools and the April 2024 flow for secondary schools. The tables after it set out each.
Figure
Where an answered tool goes
The form comes down from the Central Office through the region and the division; the council’s answers go back up, checked at each level. A council’s own count is not its final score: the division’s validation decides it.
Lights each stop in turn, from the form’s release to the Central Office’s analysis.
2026, elementary schools11 stops
The roll-out that opened on September 29, 2026: the School Head facilitates, the documents go into Drive folders, and a school answers once.
Central OfficeCreate and disseminate
The Central Office makes the online form and its user guide
The Central Office develops the online version of the tool and its user guide, and disseminates the Google Forms links to the Regional Offices through e-mail.
Enclosure No. 3 to DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, “Central Office”
Regional OfficeRead and disseminate
The region reads the guide, shares the links and forms its team
The Regional Office familiarizes itself with the user guide, distributes the links to its divisions, and organizes an RO Composite Team chaired by the Assistant Regional Director: three to five members, the SGC focal person among them.
Enclosure No. 3 to DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, “Regional Office”
Schools Division OfficeRead and disseminate
The division reads the guide, tells its schools and forms its team
The Schools Division Office reviews the user guide, disseminates the links to its public elementary schools, and forms an SDO SGC Composite Team chaired by the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent.
Enclosure No. 3 to DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, “School Division Office”
SchoolRead and prepare
The council gets one file ready for each indicator
The council reads the user guide, prepares accurate and quality means of verification, and consolidates the documents for each indicator into one PDF file, the minimum and the additional ones kept apart.
Enclosure No. 3 to DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, “Public Elementary Schools”
SchoolUpload
The documents go into one shared folder
The documents are uploaded to one main Google Drive folder that anyone with the link can view, with a folder inside it for each indicator or sub-indicator’s documents and one for the signed Validity Form. The link to the main folder is prepared for submission.
Enclosure No. 3 to DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, “Public Elementary Schools”; Enclosure No. 1, User Guide, Volume 1
SchoolAccomplish
The council answers the online tool, once
The council answers the tool through the Google Form from the school’s official DepEd e-mail address and enters the link to its folder. The School Head facilitates, and ensures that the members of the council are consulted in answering. A school accomplishes the tool only once, so every entry is reviewed before it is sent.
Enclosure No. 3 to DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, “Public Elementary Schools”
Schools Division OfficeMonitor and validate
The division checks each school's documents
The SDO Composite Team tracks its schools’ submissions and validates the data and the documents through the SDO Validation Sheet. It may visit a school if necessary.
Enclosure No. 3 to DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, “School Division Office”
Schools Division OfficeProvide technical assistance
The division helps schools put a submission right
The division guides schools in accomplishing the tool and in correcting submissions with incomplete or inaccurate documents before the deadline. Whether a school may update or correct what it submitted is at the discretion of the SDO SGC focal person. The division also records updated data on its secondary schools’ councils in the SDO Monitoring Sheet.
Enclosure No. 3 to DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, “School Division Office”
Schools Division OfficeSubmit
The division certifies its sheet to the region
Once all validated data are final, the division submits the certification of the accomplished Validation Sheet to the Regional Office by e-mail, before the deadline.
Enclosure No. 3 to DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, “School Division Office”
Regional OfficeMonitor, certify and submit
The region monitors, clears duplicates and certifies
The RO Composite Team monitors through the RO Monitoring Sheet. Its SGC focal person deletes a duplicate entry only after notifying the division and receiving its acknowledgment, and logs each deletion. Once all its divisions have certified, the region certifies the Monitoring Sheet as correct and accurate and submits the certification to the Central Office.
Enclosure No. 3 to DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, “Regional Office”
Central OfficeMonitor, consolidate and analyze
The Central Office follows progress and analyzes the results
The Central Office monitors the data the councils submit, checks each region’s progress in the third week of every month, and consolidates and analyzes the certified RO Monitoring Sheets.
Enclosure No. 3 to DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, “Central Office”
2024, secondary schools9 stops
The revised flow of April 2024: the Designated Co-Chairperson facilitates, the documents are uploaded with the form, and a school may answer again.
Central OfficeCreate and disseminate
The Central Office makes the online form and sends its link to the regions
The Central Office creates the Google Forms version of the tool and disseminates the link to the Regional Offices through e-mail.
Enclosure No. 2 to DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, “Central Office”
Regional OfficeDisseminate
The region shares the link and forms its composite team
The Regional Office shares the link with its divisions and reorganizes the RO SGC Composite Team: the Assistant Regional Director as chair and three to five members, the Regional School-Based Management Coordinator among them.
Enclosure No. 2 to DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, “Regional Office”
Schools Division OfficeDisseminate
The division tells its schools and forms its composite team
The Schools Division Office informs the schools to accomplish the tool through the link, and reorganizes the SDO Composite Team: the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent as chair and three to five members, the SDO School-Based Management Coordinator among them.
Enclosure No. 2 to DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, “Schools Division Office”
SchoolPrepare
The council gets its documents ready
The council prepares the means of verification needed for each indicator and ensures their quality and correctness before uploading. The Designated Co-Chairperson facilitates, and ensures that the members and the School Head are consulted in answering the tool.
Enclosure No. 2 to DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, “Schools”
SchoolAccomplish
The council answers the online tool
Once the documents are final, the council answers the Google Forms version of the tool and uploads them. A school may accomplish the tool again; the Central Office refreshes the division’s validation sheet every Friday to show the latest submission.
Enclosure No. 2 to DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, “Schools; Schools Division Office”
Schools Division OfficeValidate
The division checks each document
The SDO Composite Team validates the accuracy of what the schools submitted by checking the means of verification, using Report No. 2, the SDO Validation Tool. It may visit a school if necessary. For a school that answered again, the Re-accomplishment Monitoring Sheet shows it, and the team updates its validation.
Enclosure No. 2 to DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, “Schools Division Office”
Schools Division OfficeForward
The division certifies its report to the region
Upon validation, the division submits the certification of the accomplished Report No. 2 to the Regional Office by e-mail.
Enclosure No. 2 to DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, “Schools Division Office”
Regional OfficeMonitor and certify
The region monitors and certifies
The RO Composite Team monitors and verifies the results its divisions submitted through Report No. 3, the RO Monitoring Tool, certifies that report as correct and accurate, and submits the certification to the Central Office.
Enclosure No. 2 to DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, “Regional Office”
Central OfficeConsolidate and analyze
The Central Office consolidates, visits and analyzes
The Central Office consolidates and analyzes the validated data the divisions submitted and the regions certified, and visits selected schools to check the validity of the documents. The results are a reference for strategies and interventions to strengthen the policy.
Enclosure No. 2 to DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, “Central Office”
Memorandum DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750 (September 22, 2026), Enclosure No. 3; Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2024-0696 (April 11, 2024), Enclosure No. 2
Under the 2026 process flow (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. Nos. 3 and 5), each level has its own steps:
| Level | What it does | Its record |
|---|---|---|
| School | The council reads the User Guide, prepares “accurate and quality MOVs”, uploads them to its Drive folder and answers the Google Form once, from the school’s official DepEd email address. The School Head facilitates. | The answered form, the Drive folder and the Validity Form |
| Schools Division Office | Forms an SDO SGC Composite Team chaired by the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent. The team monitors submissions, validates every MOV and “may also conduct field visit if necessary”, gives schools technical assistance, enters updated data on its secondary schools’ councils, then sends its certification to the region by email. | SDO Validation Sheet and SDO Monitoring Sheet |
| Regional Office | Forms an RO SGC Composite Team chaired by the Assistant Regional Director. The team monitors the divisions, spot-checks MOVs and certifies the regional sheet “as correct and accurate”. Its SGC focal person deletes a duplicate submission only after notice to the division and the division’s acknowledgment. | RO Monitoring Sheet and Multiple Submission Deletion Log |
| Central Office | Develops the online form and the User Guide, sends the links to the regions, monitors submissions, checks each region’s progress “during the third week of each month”, then consolidates and analyzes the certified sheets. | The national results |
The composite teams. Encl. No. 5 sets both teams at “three (3) to five (5) members”, the SGC focal person among them. The process flow gives the division team “three (3) to six (6) members, including the SDO SGC Focal person and the Public Schools Division Superintendent” (Encl. No. 3). Three designated division validators, the focal person among them, can edit the validation sheet (User Guide, Vol. 2, p. 32).
The school head’s tasks. The memorandum lists them: follow User Guide Volume 1, “Prepare and Respond”; organize and label the MOVs; “conduct a school-level quality assurance review to verify that all entries and MOVs are accurate, complete, organized”; answer follow-up questions from the division or region; and, on reassignment or transfer, turn over “all SGC-related documents, records, information, and responsibilities to the incoming school head” (Encl. No. 5).
The statuses. After validation, a school’s row on the division’s sheet reads Functional, “If the school has 10 or more valid MOVs”, or Partially Functional, “If the school has fewer than 10 valid MOVs”. A school that answered but submitted no MOVs, or only invalid ones, is Data Unsupported. A school that has not answered is listed under No Existing SGC, which the guide defines as “If the school has not yet accomplished the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool (Online Form)”. Until the division finishes, the row reads Unvalidated or Incomplete Validation (User Guide, Vol. 2, p. 17). A council that exists but does not answer by March 31, 2027 is therefore counted with the schools that have none. Three more statuses mark a sheet that still needs work by the division or the region: Multiple Submissions Detected, Marking Error and Validator’s Remarks Required. SGC MOV Validation: Why Documents Are Marked Invalid explains all nine, and what a school does at each.
Corrections. A school answers once. Whether it may then update or correct an MOV is at the discretion of the division’s SGC focal person, “subject to applicable policies and timelines” (Encl. No. 5). Where the focal person allows it, the school replaces the file in its Drive folder and notifies the focal person, who validates the new file (User Guide, Vol. 2, pp. 20 to 23).
The region does not overrule the division. The regional team may spot-check MOVs, but “the RO is not permitted to make changes to the validation status”; where it finds a discrepancy, it “shall inform the SDO SGC Focal person for appropriate action” (Encl. No. 5).
Field visits. The division’s team may visit a school “to verify the accuracy and authenticity of submissions” (Encl. No. 3). The tool tells every council to keep its MOVs “complete and readily available” during “data validation of the SDOs and/or BHROD-SED”.
Where to get the form. The link travels from the Central Office to the regions, from each region to its divisions, and from each division to its schools. The 2026 links are sent privately, one per division, and are “not to be shared publicly” (Encl. No. 9). A school gets the form from its division’s SGC focal person in the SGOD. Schools Division Office Functions: OSDS, CID and SGOD explains where that office sits. The short links printed in the 2024 memorandum belonged to a collection that closed on June 21, 2024.
What changed for elementary schools in 2026
The 2026 process keeps the four levels and the twelve indicators. It changes how a school submits and what a validator accepts.
| Elementary schools, 2026 to 2027 | Secondary schools, 2024 | |
|---|---|---|
| Where MOVs go | One shared Google Drive folder with labeled sub-folders; its link goes in the online form | Uploaded in the online form |
| Corrections | Only where the division’s SGC focal person permits; the school replaces the file in its folder | Answer the tool again; the latest submission counts |
| Duplicate submissions | Deleted by the regional SGC focal person after notice to the division and its acknowledgment, and recorded in a Multiple Submission Deletion Log | Tracked on the Re-accomplishment Monitoring Sheet (RMS) |
| MOV formats | BHROD-SED’s formats are samples that may be modified | The FAQ deck called for “the prescribed template of BHROD-SED” |
| Period of MOVs | School Year 2022-2023 onward | None printed |
| Signatures on a resolution | The voting members and the School Head, in wet signatures | The tool’s “signed by all SGC voting members” |
| Validity Form | Prepared and signed by the two Co-Chairpersons and the Secretary, approved by the School Head, kept in the Drive folder | Uploaded at the end of the form |
| Status below the mark | Partially Functional | Not Yet Functional |
| Division’s record | SDO Validation Sheet and SDO Monitoring Sheet | Report 2 and the RMS |
| Region’s record | RO Monitoring Sheet | Report 3 |
| Central Office’s check on progress | A monthly progress check in the third week of each month | Numbered progress checks |
Source: DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7; DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Encl. Nos. 1 to 6; BHROD-SED, FAQ deck of April 15, 2024.
The 2024 flow for secondary schools
Under the 2024 process flow (DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Encl. No. 2), each level had its own steps:
| Level | What it does | Its record |
|---|---|---|
| School | The council prepares the MOVs and ensures their “quality and correctness” before uploading, then answers the online form. The Designated Co-Chairperson facilitates. | The answered form and its uploads |
| Schools Division Office | Forms a composite team chaired by the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent, with 3 to 5 members including the division’s School-Based Management Coordinator. The team monitors submissions and validates every MOV; it “may conduct a field visit if necessary”. It then sends its certification to the region by email. | Report 2: SDO Validation Tool, and the Re-accomplishment Monitoring Sheet (RMS) |
| Regional Office | Forms a composite team chaired by the Assistant Regional Director, with 3 to 5 members including the Regional School-Based Management Coordinator. The team monitors the divisions’ progress and certifies the regional report “as correct and accurate”. | Report 3: RO Monitoring Tool, and the regional certification |
| Central Office | Creates the online form, sends its link to the regions, validates “the data submitted by the SGCs in selected Public Secondary Schools” by field visit, then consolidates and analyzes the certified reports. | The national results |
The four statuses of 2024. Report 2 gave every school one of four: “Functional, Unvalidated, No Submission, Not Yet Functional” (Encl. No. 3). A school that has answered but whose MOVs the division has not yet opened is unvalidated, whatever its own score.
Re-accomplishment. In the first weeks of the endline, a submitted MOV could not be replaced, and only schools that had answered by November 7, 2023 could answer again. BHROD-SED lifted that limit in January 2024 for all secondary schools. From then on it refreshed Report 2 “every Friday to display the latest MOV submission of the schools”, and the RMS showed each division which schools had answered again, so that the team could “update the status of the validation of the MOVs based on the most recent submission” (Encl. No. 4; SDO guide of January 2024). The division did not have to wait for all schools before starting: the accomplishment of the tool and the validation ran together.
The region did not overrule the division then either. Asked whether a region may change a validation the division has made, the FAQ answered no: the regional team “must coordinate with the SDO composite teams regarding their recommendation to review and revalidate the MOV” (FAQ deck, April 15, 2024, No. 14).
The Central Office’s visit. The field visit to selected schools “intends to check and ensure the validity of the Means of Verifications (MOVs) submitted by the SGCs” (Encl. No. 2).
History of the SGC tool, 2022 to 2026
| Date | What happened | Source |
|---|---|---|
| June 17, 2022 | DO 026, s. 2022 is issued, with the twelve indicators of functionality in Part VII. | DO 026, s. 2022 |
| September 2022 to March 2023 | Baseline collection in public secondary schools. | DM-OUHROD-2024-0696 |
| September 25, 2023 | Endline collection begins in public secondary schools (the tool’s “2023 Rollout”). | DM-OUHROD-2024-0696 |
| January 2024 | Re-accomplishment opens to all secondary schools; the RMS is added to Report 2. | SDO guide of January 2024; FAQ deck, January 2024 |
| March 8, 2024 | The collection is interrupted when DepEd’s Google accounts exceed their storage quota; submission and validation stop for a month. | DM-OUHROD-2024-0696 |
| April 11, 2024 | The revised tool is issued, with new links on an account with more storage. Submissions made before March 8 are kept. | DM-OUHROD-2024-0696; FAQ deck, April 15, 2024, No. 2 |
| April 16 to June 21, 2024 | The collection resumes. June 21 is the last day for schools and for the divisions’ certifications; July 19, 2024 is the deadline for the regions’ certifications. | DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Encl. No. 6 |
| February 11, 2025 | The endline results are released. | DM-OUHROD-2025-0349 |
| June 30, 2025 | The SGC To-Do Calendar is released. | DM-OUHROD-2025-1774 |
| January 19 and February 13, 2026 | BHROD-SED meets regional coordinators and surveys the regional and division composite teams on the elementary tool. | Minutes of the two meetings; survey results of February 2026 |
| March 12 to April 16, 2026 | Online consultations in three phases. | DM-OUHROD-2026-0365, February 10, 2026 |
| April and May 2026 | Meetings on the pilot test (April 23 and 27) and the pilot test itself. | Notice of meeting, April 21, 2026; DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 8 |
| September 22, 2026 | The rollout memorandum for public elementary schools is issued. | DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750 |
| September 29, 2026 | The elementary collection opens. | DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 8 |
The 2024 revision changed the storage and the reports, not the content. BHROD-SED’s orientation of April 24, 2024 told regional teams: “There were changes in the feature of the tool, but the approach on how to submit the MOVs are still the same.” One form served all secondary schools, and Reports 2 and 3 and the RMS became sheets of one workbook per region, the SGC Functionality Assessment Reports. The indicators, sub-indicators and MOVs stayed as they were in the 2023 rollout, and the 2026 elementary tool carries them unchanged.
Results: how many SGCs are functional
The endline results are in Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2025-0349 of February 11, 2025: “across 217 divisions and 16 regions, 9,498 out of 10,096 secondary schools (94%) participated in the endline data collection, with 4,649 secondary schools (49%) having functional SGCs.”
The two percentages have different bases. The 94% is 9,498 of the 10,096 secondary schools covered (94.1%). The 49% is 4,649 of the 9,498 schools that took part (48.9%); the rollout memorandum of 2026 says so in words: “Among the participating schools, 4,649 (49%) were found to have functional SGCs.” Against all 10,096 schools, validated functional councils come to 46.0%.
BHROD-SED’s January 19, 2026 presentation to regional coordinators sets the endline beside the baseline:
| Schools that responded | With an established SGC | With a functional SGC | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline, September 2022 to March 2023 | 9,869 of 10,100 (97.7%) | 9,786 | 12 (0.1% of respondents) |
| Endline, September 2023 to June 2024 | 9,498 of 10,096 (94.1%) | 9,244 | 4,649 (48.9% of respondents) |
Source: Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2025-0349; BHROD-SED, presentation to regional School-Based Management coordinators, January 19, 2026. Shares are computed from the counts.
Almost every secondary school had a council at both points. What changed was the number that could prove the council worked. At the baseline, the presentation reports, 7,032 councils (71% of respondents) met none of the twelve indicators, FI1 was the indicator most often met, and FI7, the recommendation to the Local School Board, the least. Its conclusions name the cause in plain terms: “Many SGCs lack organized operation due to poor documentation”.
The same presentation treats the jump with care. Among its recommendations for the assessment are to “Review exponential increase of functional SGCs from baseline to endline to ensure data credibility” and to “Validate assessment results through site visits and case documentation of SGC practices”. These are recommendations in a presentation, not findings.
What the results memorandum asks of the field is modest: regions and divisions “are advised to coordinate with the secondary schools to ensure clear information dissemination of the results and continuous provision of technical assistance”. It also names a list of participating schools for “reference and verification”. A secondary school that does not know its 2024 status can ask its division, which holds the validated sheet.
The national plan uses the same count. The Quality Basic Education Development Plan 2025-2035 lists the “Percentage of public schools with a functional school governing council” at 9.69% for SY 2023-2024, with a target of 100% in 2028 (Annex 6). The plan does not show its arithmetic. The 4,649 functional councils of the endline are 9.69% of about 47,980 schools, close to the number of public schools in the country, so the baseline appears to count every elementary school as not yet functional because none had been assessed. Q-BEDP 2025-2035: DepEd’s 10-Year Plan and the PDP sets out the plan’s other school targets.
The 2026 rollout for public elementary schools
Elementary schools were told in 2026 what secondary schools were told in 2022.
The consultation. Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2026-0365 of February 10, 2026 announced that BHROD-SED would “modify and enhance the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool prior to its roll-out in public elementary schools this year”, through online consultations with selected regional staff, division staff and school heads in three phases:
| Phase | Regional offices | Division offices | School heads |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | March 12, 2026 | March 13, 2026 | March 16, 2026 |
| 2 | March 26, 2026 | March 27, 2026 | March 30, 2026 |
| 3 | April 16, 2026, all three groups together |
The survey. Before the consultations, BHROD-SED surveyed the composite teams: 219 of 239 answered (91.6%), all 17 regional offices and 202 of 222 division offices. The last column shows what the September 2026 memorandum adopted on each question.
| Question | Most preferred answer | Share of 219 | What the September 2026 memorandum adopted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who leads the process | The Central Office | 111 (50.7%) | A Central Office tool, with division validation and regional certification |
| How MOVs are submitted | A Google Drive folder, with its link in a Google Form | 81 (37.0%) | Google Drive folders with links in the form |
| How long the rollout runs | Six months | 104 (47.5%) | Online form open from September 29, 2026 to March 31, 2027 |
| Who answers in the school | The School Head | 117 (53.4%) | The School Head facilitates |
| How many MOVs per indicator | One to three | 180 (82.2%) | The MOV lists of the secondary tool, unchanged |
| Size of a composite team | Three to five members | 121 (55.3%) | Three to five members (Encl. No. 5); the process flow says three to six for the division team (Encl. No. 3) |
| Validators per MOV | Three | 156 (71.2%) | Three designated division validators can edit the validation sheet (User Guide, Vol. 2) |
Source: BHROD-SED, Consolidated Survey Responses on the Development of the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool for Elementary Schools, February 2026; DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750.
The survey’s own note says its results “will be taken into consideration” and that the tool “shall undergo further consultation with field counterparts prior to its finalization”. A preference in a survey is not a rule; the last column is.
The meetings. On January 19, 2026, BHROD-SED presented the secondary results and a tentative plan for the year to the regional School-Based Management coordinators; its timeline carried the note that the activities were “still pending approval”. On February 13, 2026, it presented the survey results. The minutes of that meeting record that a face-to-face consultation was disapproved, leaving the online phases. An answer in the January presentation settled what would stay the same: “The MOVs to be requested or prepared shall remain the same. Only the data collection and validation process and tools will be modified, following a series of consultations.”
The pilot. A notice of meeting dated April 21, 2026 called the regional SGC focal persons and one division from each of 17 regions to virtual meetings on April 23 (Visayas and Mindanao) and April 27 (Luzon) “to discuss the context, objectives, and pilot testing arrangements” of the elementary tool. The rollout memorandum dates the pilot test to May 2026 and the technical assistance workshops with regions and divisions to June through August 2026 (Encl. No. 8).
The rollout. Memorandum DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750 was released on September 22, 2026, and the regions passed it on in the following weeks (Region VIII by Regional Memorandum No. 1310, s. 2026, of October 6, 2026). Its stated aim is “to generate baseline information on the functionality of SGCs in public elementary schools, identify areas for improvement, and inform the provision of appropriate technical assistance and support”. The printable tool it encloses carries the same twelve indicators, nineteen sub-indicators, MOV lists and 10-of-12 mark as the secondary tool. Its dates:
| Date | Activity |
|---|---|
| September 29, 2026 | The collection opens for public elementary schools |
| Third week of each month, October 2026 to May 2027 | Monthly progress check between the Central Office and the regional SGC focal persons |
| March 31, 2027 | The online form closes; duplicate submissions can no longer be deleted |
| April 30, 2027 | The regional and division sheets close; updates or corrections to a submission are allowed only if the division permits them, within the period it prescribes |
| May 5, 2027 | Deadline for the divisions’ certifications to the regions |
| May 14, 2027 | Deadline for the regions’ certifications to the Central Office |
Source: DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 8.
The 2026 division sheet counts councils in classes the secondary sheet did not have, among them schools with “No Existing SGC” and councils that are “Partially Functional” (Encl. No. 6). The User Guide defines both: a school that has not answered the form is listed under the first, and a council with “fewer than 10 valid MOVs” under the second (Vol. 2, p. 17). The mark for a functional council remains 10 of 12.
The SGC tool, SBM, the SIP and the OPCRF
School-Based Management. DO 026 calls School-Based Management (SBM) “the face of shared governance in schools”. The SBM Self-Assessment Checklist of DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024 has 42 indicators, and indicator 24, under Governance and Accountability, reads “The school has a functional School Governance Council (SGC)”. The school rates it on four degrees, from “Not yet manifested” to “Always manifested”.
The two assessments work differently, and a school head should keep them apart:
| SBM indicator 24 | SGC Functionality Assessment Tool | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuance | DO 007, s. 2024 | Memoranda under DO 026, s. 2022, Part VII |
| Who rates | The school, with its stakeholders | The school answers; the division validates |
| Scale | Four degrees of manifestation | Yes or No on twelve indicators; functional at 10 |
| Documents | “the prior practice of attaching various means of verification as documentary evidence to attest to the level of practice is no longer necessary” | Minimum MOVs for every Yes |
| Use | Continuous improvement and the division’s technical assistance | Priority areas for support; the national count of functional councils |
DO 007 does not define “functional” for indicator 24. The tool’s twelve indicators are DepEd’s own reading of the word under DO 026, so a school that rates indicator 24 “Always manifested” while its council stands below the tool’s mark (“Partially Functional” on the 2026 sheet, “Not Yet Functional” in 2024) has two answers that do not agree. The honest SBM rating follows the validated result. DepEd Revised SBM: DO 007, s. 2024 and the Self-Assessment explains the checklist.
The SIP. Three of the twelve points cannot be earned without the plan: FI2 (the council takes part in writing the SIP and AIP), FI7 (it recommends the SIP to the Local School Board) and FI12 (it suggests improvements). One of FI3’s other sub-indicators, FI3B on agendas that support the SIP and AIP, also turns on it. The order also has the council submit a “semi-annual accomplishment report including an action plan, through and with the approval of the School Head”, to the SDS and the LGU and “integrate it in the SRC” (Part V, Specific Functions, item 5). The tool does not ask for that report as a minimum MOV, but the “SGC’s Action Plan” appears as an MOV under FI2, FI3, FI4 and FI11. A council that keeps the order’s reporting cycle has most of the tool’s documents on file.
The OPCRF. Neither memorandum makes the tool’s result part of the school head’s performance rating. The Office Performance Commitment and Review Form is governed by its own issuances, and the objectives in it are set between the school head and the division. Where a division writes SGC functionality into a school head’s commitments, the validated status on the tool is the natural evidence. OPCRF for DepEd School Heads in 2026: What Applies Now covers the form in use.
What this means for school heads
Know which collection applies to your school. An elementary school head facilitates the 2026 to 2027 collection and answers for its accuracy. A secondary school head is not asked to answer the national form in 2026, but the division still reports the council’s status and may validate it by its own method. In both, the council prepares the MOVs together; the form is one person’s task and the evidence is everyone’s.
Keep the MOVs filed by indicator, all year. A folder for each indicator, with each sub-indicator’s minimum MOVs kept apart from its additional ones, mirrors the Drive folder the 2026 process has elementary schools share and is what a field visit asks any school to show. DO 026 already places the papers with the council’s Secretary, who stores them “within the school premises”, with “digital copies” that are “accessible to the school administrator” (Part V.M, Storage of Documents). Ask for the file at every turnover: the order has the school head “properly turn-over all SGC documents in case there is a change of school leadership in the middle of the school year” (Part VI.A, item 6).
Let the council’s calendar produce the MOVs. The documents the tool asks for are by-products of the work DO 026 schedules. The grouping below is one way to plan the year; the tool fixes the documents, not the months.
| Council work in the year | Documents it leaves | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| Each of the four regular meetings | Notice sent a week ahead; minutes with attendance, quorum and agenda; at least one signed resolution | FI1, FI3 |
| A planning session with the School Planning Team on the SIP or AIP | Minutes of the meeting | FI2 |
| A coordination meeting with the PTA, learner government, faculty club and committees | Minutes of the meeting | FI4 |
| The Co-Chairpersons’ letter to the School Head on the council’s direction for the year | Copy of the letter | FI5 |
| Planning of Brigada Eskwela or another stakeholder-initiated activity | Minutes of the meeting; concept note or project brief | FI6 |
| A recommendation to the Local School Board based on the SIP, sent through the School Head | Resolution or other document | FI7 |
| A decision on which sectors to invite, including non-voting members | Resolution | FI8 |
| The general assembly, PTA conference or SOSA | The council’s report on the issues and concerns raised | FI9 |
| A forum or orientation the council organizes | Documentation of the program; minutes of the meeting where the issues were discussed | FI10 |
| A decision and plan on the SRC, the transparency board and other channels | Resolution; action plan on access to information | FI11 |
| A midyear or year-end review of the SIP and AIP | Resolution recommending improvements | FI12 |
Do your own part of each indicator. Several MOVs depend on the school head: giving the council “proper and timely information on the progress of the implementation of activities supportive of SIP”, explaining a disapproved or modified recommendation, and referring approved ones for action (DO 026, s. 2022, Part VI.A). In the 2026 collection the school head also signs every resolution and the Validity Form. A council cannot prove it advises a school head who does not answer it.
Check before the division does. Run the self-check with the Designated Co-Chairperson and the Secretary. For every Yes, open the document and ask the validator’s questions: is it the right document for that sub-indicator, does it name the School Governance Council, is it dated within the period, does it show the quorum and the signed attendance, and does it carry the signatures it needs? Answer No where it does not. In the 2026 collection a school submits once, so the school-level review the memorandum requires is the only one a school controls.
Treat a status below the mark as a work plan. “Partially Functional” on the 2026 sheet, like “Not Yet Functional” in 2024, says the council has fewer than ten valid scoring MOVs. Ask the division which MOVs were marked invalid and why; providing “relevant, timely and appropriate technical assistance to the schools” is the division’s duty under the order (Part VI.B). Put each unmet indicator on the agenda of the next council meeting as work to be done: the meeting with the planning team that never happened, the recommendation to the Local School Board that was never written. Record the gaps in the SBM self-assessment and, where they need resources, in the AIP. Then ask how the division will re-validate.
Never manufacture a document. The tool measures practice through paper, and a paper written after the fact measures nothing. Minutes typed for a meeting that did not take place, a resolution dated before the council adopted it, a signature written for a member by someone else, and an absent member’s signature on an attendance sheet are all false documents. Validators may visit a school “to verify the accuracy and authenticity of submissions” (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 3), and the school head signs a Validity Form that confirms the authenticity of what was submitted. For DepEd personnel, falsification of official document and serious dishonesty are grave offenses punished by dismissal (2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Sec. 63(A)(1)(e) and (l); DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006, Sec. 58(A)(1) and (6)). Where a falsified document was the means of a dishonest act, the 2025 rules charge dishonesty alone, and its class, from simple (suspension of one month and one day to six months for a first offense) to serious (dismissal), depends on the circumstances (Sec. 64(B)). DepEd Administrative Offenses and Penalties in 2026 sets out both tables. The lawful remedy is always available: call a meeting on a week’s notice, let the council decide, and date the resolution on the day it is adopted. A truthful No on two indicators still leaves a council functional.
Where it sits in the PPSSH. The work falls mainly under Domain 5, Building Connections, strand 5.2 on the management of school organizations, and under Domain 1, Leading Strategically, where monitoring and evaluation and the school plan belong. The records side is in Domain 2. See PPSSH Domain 5 for the NASH: Building Connections, PPSSH Domain 1 for the NASH: Leading Strategically and PPSSH Domain 2 for the NASH: Managing School Operations. The standards are in DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.
How the NASH may test this
The items below are original practice items, scored 3 (Relational), 2 (Multistructural), 1 (Unistructural) or 0 (Prestructural). An option that breaks a rule scores 0.
Question 1
Indicator 5.2.2, Management of school organizations. Career Stage 2, Situational, Moderate.
You are the school head of a public elementary school. Three weeks before the online form for the School Governance Council’s functionality assessment closes, the Designated Co-Chairperson reports that the council met every quarter and kept its notices and minutes, but agreed on every matter orally and never wrote a resolution. Several indicators ask for one. The Secretary offers to type resolutions dated on the days of those meetings and to have the members sign them this week. What is the most appropriate action?
- A. Answer the tool now with the notices and minutes the council has, mark No on the indicators that need a resolution, and raise the gap at the first meeting of the next school year.
- B. Accept the Secretary’s offer and have all voting members sign the resolutions this week, since the dates match meetings in which the council did agree on those matters.
- C. Ask the Co-Chairpersons to call a meeting on a week’s notice, where the council puts its agreements into resolutions signed and dated that day, then answer from its records.
- D. Write to the division’s SGC focal person to ask for more time, explaining that the council needs another quarter to complete the documents for those indicators.
Answer and explanation: Question 1
Best answer: C. Points: A = 2, B = 0, C = 3, D = 1.
- A (2 points, Multistructural). It answers truthfully and uses the records the council has, but it leaves three weeks unused when the council can still decide the matters properly.
- B (0 points, Prestructural). A resolution dated before the council adopted it is a false document, whatever the members agreed orally; the tool asks for accurate MOVs.
- C (3 points, Relational). It uses the order’s own procedure, a meeting on a week’s notice and a written, signed decision, so that the answer on the tool matches what the council has done.
- D (1 point, Unistructural). Coordinating with the division is sound, but asking for time does nothing about the council’s practice of deciding without writing.
Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 5.2.2 asks the school head to manage school organizations by applying the policies that govern them. DO 026, s. 2022 lets either Co-Chairperson, in consultation with the School Head, call a special meeting, requires notice “at least a week prior”, and requires that a decision “be in writing, signed by the SGC members” (Part V.M). DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750 has the school head verify that “all entries and MOVs are accurate” before the one submission (Encl. No. 5). Answering now is truthful but does not use the time left to put the council’s decisions in order.
Indicator 5.2.2: Manage school organizations, such as learner organizations, faculty clubs and parent-teacher associations, by applying relevant policies and guidelines to support the attainment of institutional goals.
Sources: DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022, Part V.M (Meetings; Decisions); Memorandum DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. Nos. 3 and 5.
Question 2
Indicator 5.2.1, Management of school organizations. Career Stage 1, Conceptual, Moderate.
In the 2024 collection, a secondary school’s council scored itself 12 of 12 on the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool. After the division’s validation, its final score was 8 and its status Not Yet Functional. Which statement best explains the result and its use?
- A. The division’s score replaces the school’s own, so the school should record 8 of 12 in its files and wait for the division’s next instruction.
- B. The division counted an indicator when its minimum document was valid, so the result shows which council functions lack valid proof and need support.
- C. The division applied a stricter standard than the tool’s, so the school head should ask the regional office to restore the council’s own score of 12.
- D. The division checked each uploaded document against the minimum requirement, so the school need only correct the documents marked invalid and answer the tool again.
Answer and explanation: Question 2
Best answer: B. Points: A = 1, B = 3, C = 0, D = 2.
- A (1 point, Unistructural). It is right that the validated score is the one that counts, but it treats the result as a verdict to wait out and not as information to act on.
- B (3 points, Relational). It joins how the score is made, a valid minimum MOV for each point, to what the tool says the result is for: finding the areas that need support.
- C (0 points, Prestructural). The division applies the tool’s own minimum requirement, and the region may not change a division’s validation; it can only ask the division to review it.
- D (2 points, Multistructural). It understands the scoring and uses a channel the 2024 collection allowed, but it reads the missing points as a filing problem when they may be functions the council does not yet perform.
Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.2.1 asks for knowledge and understanding of the guidelines on managing school organizations. The division ticks an MOV “Valid” only if it “satisfies the minimum requirement for the Sub-indicator”, and each valid one “counts as 1 in the Final Score” (DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Encl. No. 3). The tool’s result “shall be used as information in identifying priority areas that may need support and assistance” (Encl. No. 1). Resubmitting documents understands the count but not the purpose.
Indicator 5.2.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of policies and guidelines on managing school organizations, such as learner organizations, faculty clubs and parent-teacher associations, in support of the attainment of institutional goals.
Sources: Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Encl. Nos. 1 and 3; BHROD-SED, Revised SGC Functionality Assessment Tool FAQs, April 15, 2024, No. 14.
Nothing in this guide reproduces or predicts examination content.
Frequently asked questions
How many indicators must an SGC meet to be functional?
At least 10 of the 12 functionality indicators, which the tool also states as at least 80%, each on a valid minimum MOV. Only primary sub-indicators and indicators without sub-indicators count, and the count that decides is the division’s, of the MOVs it finds valid (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. Nos. 1 and 2; for secondary schools, DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Encl. Nos. 1 and 3).
Are elementary schools required to answer the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool?
Yes, in the collection that opened on September 29, 2026. Memorandum DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750 of September 22, 2026 implements the tool “exclusively for public elementary schools” for 2026, with the online form open until March 31, 2027. A school gets the form from its division, which may add its own steps before releasing the link.
Who answers the tool: the school head or the SGC?
For elementary schools in 2026, the School Head facilitates and must consult the members of the SGC (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 3). For secondary schools in the 2023 to 2024 collection, the Designated Co-Chairperson facilitated and consulted the council and the School Head (DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Encl. No. 2). In both, the council prepares the MOVs.
Do secondary schools still answer the tool in 2026?
Not through the national form. The 2026 memorandum keeps secondary schools under technical assistance, validation and monitoring by the regional and division composite teams, and each division reports updated data on its secondary schools’ councils. A secondary school should keep its MOVs current and follow its division’s instructions.
Can a school use its own format for minutes and resolutions?
Yes, in the 2026 collection for elementary schools. The User Guide calls BHROD-SED’s formats samples that “may be modified and contextualized in accordance with the preferences of the SGCs”, “without affecting the validation process of the MOVs” (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 1, Vol. 1, p. 5). What a validator checks is the content: the council’s correct name, the period, the quorum, the signed attendance and, on a resolution, the wet signatures of the voting members and the School Head. In the 2024 secondary collection, DepEd’s FAQ deck told schools to use “the prescribed template of BHROD-SED”.
Sources
DepEd orders and plans
- DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022, Implementing Guidelines on the Establishment of School Governance Council, June 17, 2022: Part III (definitions), Part V (functions, structure, composition, officers, meetings, decisions, storage of documents, external partnership, limitations), Part VI (roles of the School Head, the SDO, the RO and the CO) and Part VII (Monitoring and Evaluation; Indicators of Functionality).
- DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024, Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Revised School-Based Management (SBM) System, May 16, 2024: Degree of Manifestation of SBM Practice; Documentary Requirements; Annex A, indicator 24.
- DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2022, Adoption of the Basic Education Development Plan 2030, May 30, 2022: results framework, “Proportion of schools with functional SGC”.
- DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads, September 7, 2020: indicators 5.2.1 and 5.2.2.
- DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006, Revised Rules of Procedure of the Department of Education in Administrative Cases: Sec. 58(A)(1) and (6).
- DepEd, Quality Basic Education Development Plan 2025-2035, July 29, 2025: Annex 6.
Civil Service Commission issuances
- Civil Service Commission, 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, CSC Resolution No. 2500357, April 30, 2025, in force since August 4, 2025: Sec. 63(A)(1)(e) and (l) and Sec. 64(B).
Memoranda of the Office of the Undersecretary for Human Resource and Organizational Development (since 2026, Human Resource and Organizational Development and Infrastructure)
- Memorandum DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Roll-Out of the School Governance Council (SGC) Functionality Assessment Tool for Public Elementary Schools, September 22, 2026, as circulated by DepEd Region VIII (Regional Memorandum No. 1310, s. 2026, October 6, 2026): Encl. No. 1 (SGC Functionality Assessment Tool User Guide, Volume 1: Prepare and Respond, and Volume 2: Validate and Monitor, Version 2), Encl. No. 2 (printable tool), Encl. No. 3 (process flow), Encl. Nos. 4 and 5 (roles and responsibilities), Encl. Nos. 6 and 7 (division and regional sheets), Encl. No. 8 (timeline) and Encl. No. 9 (links).
- Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Revised SGC Functionality Assessment Tool for Secondary Schools, April 11, 2024, as circulated by the Schools Division Office of Muntinlupa City (Division Memorandum No. 145, s. 2024): Encl. No. 1 (the tool), Encl. No. 2 (revised process flow), Encl. No. 3 (Report 2), Encl. No. 4 (Re-accomplishment Monitoring Sheet), Encl. No. 5 (Report 3) and Encl. No. 6 (schedule).
- Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2025-0349, Results of the SGC Endline Data Collection, February 11, 2025, as circulated by the Schools Division Office of Muntinlupa City.
- Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2025-1774, Release of SGC Advocacy Material: To-Do Calendar, June 30, 2025.
- Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2026-0365, Online Consultation on the Development of SGC Functionality Assessment Tool for Elementary Schools, February 10, 2026.
BHROD-SED’s explanatory materials and records
- SGC Functionality Assessment Tool orientation deck, 2022 (frequently asked questions; data collection process flow).
- 2023 SGC Functionality Assessment Tool FAQs, as of November 13, 2023, and as updated in January 2024.
- Guide in Updating the Report 2: SDO Validation Tool, January 2024.
- Understanding the Duplicated SGC Functionality Assessment Tool, orientation for regional composite teams, April 24, 2024, with the Revised SGC Functionality Assessment Tool FAQs of April 15, 2024.
- Minutes and presentation, meeting with regional School-Based Management coordinators, January 19, 2026; minutes of the second meeting, February 13, 2026.
- Consolidated Survey Responses on the Development of the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool for Elementary Schools (SGC Quick Survey), February 2026.
- Notice of Meeting, Virtual Meeting on the Pilot Testing of the School Governance Council (SGC) Functionality Assessment Tool for Public Elementary Schools, April 21, 2026.
Regional and division issuances
- DepEd Region I, Regional Memorandum No. 1283, s. 2026, and Schools Division of Vigan City, Division Memorandum No. 861, s. 2026 (October 8, 2026), Roll-Out of the School Governance Council (SGC) Functionality Assessment Tool for Public Elementary Schools.
School Governance Council series
- School Governance Council (SGC): Complete DepEd Guide
- SGC Functionality Assessment Tool: Indicators and MOVs (this post)
- How to Submit the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool
- SGC MOV Validation: Why Documents Are Marked Invalid
- SGC Minutes, Resolutions and Notices: How to Write Them
Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022; Memoranda DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, DM-OUHROD-2025-0349, DM-OUHROD-2026-0365 and DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750; DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024; BHROD-SED’s FAQs, orientation decks and 2026 consultation records.