The SIKAP study, Strengthening and Improving the Knowledge Advancement of Aspiring Principal (SIKAP) in the Philippines, is a policy brief that asks “What makes a teacher ready to become a principal?” Angel Derrickvhel Q. Tan and Rex Gregor M. Laylo wrote it, and the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Regional Center for Educational Innovation and Technology (SEAMEO INNOTECH) published it with the Education Center for AI Research (ECAIR). It analyzes the results of the 21,803 teachers who completed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 National Qualifying Examination for School Heads (NQESH) in 2024. Its central finding is that teachers already running elementary schools as designated school heads, and teachers-in-charge (TICs), were less likely than teachers with no designation to reach Category A, the top result. For every group, the weakest area was Domain 2 (Managing School Operations and Resources) or Domain 4 (Developing Self and Others) of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), with Domain 3 (Focusing on Teaching and Learning) close behind for elementary and secondary school heads.

The brief proposes a funded national leadership development program for incoming principals and nine other measures. Since the FY 2023 examination, DepEd has renamed the NQESH the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH), which the brief calls “the recalibrated NQESH” (p. 36) and DepEd calls a “developmental assessment tool”. The National Educators Academy of the Philippines (NEAP) now runs coached development programs for takers at the NASH’s three-domain and With Developmental Areas levels; for Batch 2, those programs cover takers who met a minimum overall rating.

Key findings

  • About one taker in four reached Category A. Of 21,803 completers of the FY 2023 NQESH, 5,753 (26.39%) reached Category A, 3,553 (16.30%) Category B and 12,497 (57.32%) Category C (DepEd Memorandum No. 059, s. 2024, para. 6).
  • Elementary school heads and TICs did worse than teachers with no designation. Category A was reached by 21% of designated elementary school heads and 22% of TICs, against 29% of takers with no designation. In the brief’s regression, elementary school heads had 39% lower odds of Category A, TICs 29% lower and officers-in-charge (OICs) about 26% lower (SIKAP, pp. 16, 23, 25).
  • Domain 2 or Domain 4 was the weakest for every designation. Between 46.1% and 59.2% of each group scored 65 or below in those domains, and Domain 3 came second for elementary and secondary school heads. Domain 5 (Building Connections) was the strongest for every group (p. 17).
  • Graduate study went with better results; long tenure in one position with worse. Category A was reached by 33% of doctoral-degree holders and 16% of bachelor’s-degree holders, and by 17% of takers with 10 or more years in their current position (pp. 19–20).
  • Region I led and Region IX trailed. Region I had 38% of its takers in Category A and Region IX 14%; Region IX was lowest in all five domains (pp. 21–22).
  • Schools led by Category C acting heads did not score lower. Their median Early Language, Literacy, and Numeracy Assessment (ELLNA) score was 83.7, against 70.8 for Category A, and their Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) reading gain was 95.5 points, against 93.6. The comparison makes no adjustment for school conditions (pp. 28–30).
  • Category B and C takers of 2023 were not made eligible by training. DM 059, s. 2024 says both “May retake the next NQESH” (para. 6). The coaching and certification route was for FY 2021 Category B takers (DM 013, s. 2024, para. 7).

What the SIKAP study is

SEAMEO INNOTECH published the brief (copyright 2025, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), with SEAMEO INNOTECH and ECAIR on its cover. ECAIR was set up by DepEd and SEAMEO under DepEd Order No. 013, s. 2025, which says it “will operate primarily for DepEd” (para. 4) but “does not make ECAIR a governmental office” (para. 8). ECAIR’s publications page lists the brief as a policy brief titled “Linking School-Leadership Exam Outcomes to School Performance (SIKAP)”, dated December 2025, with the note “Adopted by NEAP and EDCOM II”. The brief is research, not a DepEd issuance: its recommendations bind no office until DepEd adopts them in an order or memorandum.

The brief measures readiness by NQESH results: it studies “teacher attributes strongly associated with leadership readiness, as measured by teachers’ performance in the NQESH” (p. 2). It uses four kinds of evidence (pp. 10–11, 46):

Evidence What the brief did with it
FY 2023 NQESH results of 21,803 teachers Described takers by education, experience, designation, position and region, and modeled the odds of Category A with logistic regression
ELLNA (2023), CRLA (2024) and the School Heads Inventory Linked to the schools of acting school heads who took the NQESH and compared results across Categories A, B and C
Focus group discussions and consultations Consultations with the Office of the Undersecretary for Human Resource and Organizational Development, the Bureau of Human Resource and Organizational Development (BHROD) and NEAP; a field validation session on June 27, 2025 with Regions I, IV-A, IX and XII
Practice abroad Principal preparation in Malaysia, Canada (Ontario), South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore

The FY 2023 NQESH: who took it and how takers were classified

DepEd Memorandum No. 013, s. 2024 (February 26, 2024) set the FY 2023 NQESH for May 26, 2024. It allotted 22,000 examinee slots and told regional offices to fill them in this order: Head Teachers with at least one year, Assistant School Principals without NQESH eligibility, incumbent OICs or TICs with at least two years, and Master Teachers with at least two years; other qualified applicants came after (para. 6). Applicants needed, among other routes, one year as Head Teacher, two years as Master Teacher or TIC, or five years of teaching at Teacher III or an equal salary grade, as of February 29, 2023 (para. 5).

DM 059, s. 2024 (October 18, 2024) reported the results. The examination ran online at 75 sites on May 26 and June 2, 2024, and 21,803 of 22,000 examinees (99.10%) completed it (para. 1). Each item was scored correct or incorrect; indicator totals were “standardized using z-statistics” and converted to a scale of 1 to 100, and domain and overall scores were weighted averages of those z-scores (para. 5).

Category Rule (DM 059, s. 2024, para. 6) Takers Status
A Overall score 65 and above, and at least 4 domains at 65 and above 5,753 (26.39%) “Eligible for appointment to entry-level school principal position”
B Overall score 65 and above, and at least 3 domains at 65 and above 3,553 (16.30%) “May retake the next NQESH”
C Overall score 64 and below, or 65 and above with only 2 domains at 65 and above 12,497 (57.32%) “May retake the next NQESH”

The pool reflects the priority order. The counts below come from the brief’s Figures 4 and 5 (pp. 14–15); the percentages are computed from them.

Takers by position Number Share
Head Teacher 9,333 42.8%
Teacher I–III 6,763 31.0%
Master Teacher 5,383 24.7%
Others, such as Special Education Teachers 241 1.1%
Assistant Principal 83 0.4%
Takers by designation Number Share
No designation 8,114 37.2%
School Head (Elementary) 5,292 24.3%
Teacher-in-Charge 4,061 18.6%
Department Head (Secondary) 2,370 10.9%
School Head (Secondary) 994 4.6%
Officer-in-Charge 972 4.5%

The largest single group was 5,189 Head Teachers designated as elementary school heads (23.8% of takers), followed by 4,201 Master Teachers with no designation and 3,177 Teachers I–III with no designation. Of the 4,061 TICs, 3,126 held Teacher I–III positions. Nearly all takers had graduate study: 7,736 had master’s units (35.5%), 6,384 a master’s degree (29.3%), 3,627 doctoral units (16.6%) and 3,228 a doctorate (14.8%); 828 (3.8%) had a bachelor’s degree only. Designations such as TIC and department head are assignments, not positions; Principal, Head Teacher or Teacher-in-Charge in DepEd explains the difference.

How acting school heads performed

Elementary school heads and TICs reached Category A less often than teachers with no designation; secondary school heads and OICs did about as well, and department heads in secondary schools did best (Figure 6, p. 16).

Designation Takers Category A Category B Category C
Department Head (Secondary) 2,370 35% 20% 45%
School Head (Secondary) 994 32% 18% 50%
No designation 8,114 29% 17% 54%
Officer-in-Charge 972 29% 17% 54%
Teacher-in-Charge 4,061 22% 15% 63%
School Head (Elementary) 5,292 21% 14% 65%

Category shares from SIKAP, Figure 6 (p. 16); takers from Figure 4 (p. 14).

So 79% of designated elementary school heads and 78% of TICs did not reach Category A. Weighting each group’s Category A share by its size gives 26.5%, within rounding of DM 059’s 26.39%.

The domain scores show where the gaps lay. The brief’s Figure 7 gives the share of each group that scored 65 or below in each PPSSH domain (p. 17):

Designation D1 Leading Strategically D2 Operations and Resources D3 Teaching and Learning D4 Developing Self and Others D5 Building Connections
School Head (Elementary) 55.6% 57.2% 58.3% 59.2% 49.2%
Teacher-in-Charge 54.6% 59.0% 53.7% 58.6% 46.6%
Officer-in-Charge 43.8% 56.4% 53.6% 53.7% 40.0%
No designation 44.5% 55.7% 48.8% 52.0% 39.2%
School Head (Secondary) 45.4% 48.1% 49.3% 51.1% 33.8%
Department Head (Secondary) 40.5% 49.9% 46.5% 46.1% 33.3%

For every group, the highest share scoring 65 or below was in Domain 2 or Domain 4, and the lowest was in Domain 5. Elementary school heads had the highest shares of any group in every domain except Domain 2, where TICs were highest. The brief names Domains 2, 3 and 4 as “the top areas of concern” (p. 17): budgeting, staffing and resources; instructional leadership; and coaching and mentoring teachers.

The brief explains the gap with what it heard in the field. “Because acting appointments are temporary and often based on superintendents’ trust and confidence, they typically do not require formal leadership training” (p. 15). Some regions pair designation with training, mentoring and supervisors’ technical assistance; others offer “piecemeal interventions” (p. 16). In post-examination debriefings, “some acting school heads only became aware of the PPSSH and relevant DepEd orders after taking the NQESH” (p. 19). These accounts come from consultations; the data do not measure training or support directly.

Position, education and experience

Position. Master Teachers reached Category A more often than Head Teachers, though most Head Teachers serve as school heads (Figure 8, p. 18):

Position Category A Category B Category C
Assistant Principal I 100% 0% 0%
Assistant Principal II 43% 20% 38%
Others, such as Special Education Teachers 37% 16% 47%
Master Teacher I–IV 32% 17% 51%
Head Teacher I–VI 26% 16% 58%
Teacher I–III 22% 16% 62%

The Assistant Principal rows rest on few people: 83 of the 21,803 takers held an Assistant Principal position (Figure 4, p. 14).

Education. The share reaching Category A rose with graduate study, but most holders of every degree still fell short (Figure 10, p. 20):

Highest education Category A Category B Category C
Doctoral units 34% 18% 47%
Doctoral degree 33% 17% 50%
Master’s degree 24% 17% 59%
Master’s units 23% 15% 61%
Bachelor’s degree 16% 12% 72%

Two in three doctoral-degree holders (67%) and three in four master’s-degree holders (76%) did not reach Category A.

Experience in the current position. Longer time in the same position went with lower results (Figure 9, p. 19):

Years in current position Category A Category B Category C
Less than 1 year 31% 17% 51%
1 to 4 years 32% 18% 50%
5 to 9 years 28% 17% 55%
10 years and up 17% 14% 69%

This counts years in the current position, not total years in DepEd. It compares different people at one point in time; it does not show any teacher’s readiness declining. The brief reads it as leadership practice built around “older frameworks, with limited opportunities to align with current DepEd policies and standards” (p. 19).

Which factors predicted Category A

The brief fitted a logistic regression of Category A on education, experience, designation, position and region (Table 1, pp. 23–24). An odds ratio above 1 means higher odds of Category A than the reference group with the other factors held equal; below 1, lower odds. It compares odds, not percentages: an odds ratio of 2 does not mean twice the share.

Factor Compared with Odds ratio Significant at 5%?
Master’s units Bachelor’s degree 1.503 Yes
Master’s degree Bachelor’s degree 1.495 Yes
Doctoral units Bachelor’s degree 2.228 Yes
Doctoral degree Bachelor’s degree 2.016 Yes
4–6 years in position 3 years or less 0.838 Yes
7 years or more in position 3 years or less 0.575 Yes
Department Head (Secondary) No designation 1.07 No (p = 0.32)
Officer-in-Charge No designation 0.739 Yes
Teacher-in-Charge No designation 0.709 Yes
School Head (Elementary) No designation 0.607 Yes
School Head (Secondary) No designation 1.029 No (p = 0.75)
Others Teacher I–III 1.632 Yes
Master Teacher Teacher I–III 1.191 Yes
Head Teacher Teacher I–III 1.135 Borderline (p = 0.05)
Assistant Principal Teacher I–III 1.479 No (p = 0.09)
Greater Manila Area (Regions III, IV-A) NCR 1.036 No (p = 0.61)
Balanced Luzon (MIMAROPA, I, II, V, CAR) NCR 1.069 No (p = 0.33)
Visayas (Regions VI, VII, VIII) NCR 0.82 Yes
Mindanao (Regions IX–XII, Caraga) NCR 0.692 Yes

Three results stand out. Designation as an elementary school head, TIC or OIC went with lower odds even with position, education, experience and region held equal, so the gap for acting heads is not only a gap between Head Teachers and Master Teachers. Doctoral study went with roughly double the odds of a bachelor’s degree. And teachers in Mindanao and the Visayas had lower odds than those in NCR. These are associations in one year’s takers; they do not show that a designation or a degree changed anyone’s result.

The model’s fit is weak: McFadden’s pseudo R-squared is 0.036 (p. 24). The five factors together say little about whether a particular teacher reached Category A. The brief names one missing factor, “NQESH training”, and its conceptual framework adds institutional support and school resources, which the data did not measure (pp. 10, 24).

Regional differences in the 2023 results

Category A shares ranged from 38% in Region I to 14% in Region IX (Figure 11, p. 21). The brief reports 16 regions; the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), whose schools are run by its own education ministry, is not among them.

Region Category A Category B Category C
Region I 38% 16% 46%
NCR 33% 18% 49%
Region IV-A 32% 17% 51%
Region III 31% 17% 52%
CAR 29% 19% 51%
Region V 29% 17% 54%
Region II 28% 20% 52%
Region VI 25% 18% 57%
Region XI 25% 14% 61%
Region VII 24% 15% 61%
Caraga 23% 16% 62%
MIMAROPA 23% 17% 60%
Region VIII 22% 14% 64%
Region X 22% 17% 61%
Region XII 21% 16% 63%
Region IX 14% 14% 72%

By domain, the brief’s Figure 12 gives the share of each region’s takers counted as passing (p. 22):

Region D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
Region I 63% 52% 54% 55% 62%
NCR 62% 44% 57% 47% 65%
Region IV-A 60% 46% 52% 51% 61%
Region III 59% 45% 49% 51% 62%
Region II 57% 42% 54% 50% 57%
CAR 55% 49% 52% 46% 61%
Region V 54% 48% 46% 47% 60%
Region VI 50% 43% 48% 48% 58%
Region VII 48% 43% 47% 40% 57%
Region X 41% 49% 47% 40% 55%
Region XI 46% 46% 49% 41% 57%
MIMAROPA 48% 40% 48% 47% 53%
Caraga 49% 42% 42% 44% 54%
Region XII 44% 42% 44% 42% 56%
Region VIII 43% 43% 43% 41% 53%
Region IX 35% 35% 39% 35% 48%

Fewer than half of takers passed Domain 2 in 15 of the 16 regions (all but Region I) and Domain 4 in 12. Domain 5 was the strongest domain, or tied for it, in every region except Region I, where Domain 1 led by one point. Region IX was lowest in all five.

Region I credited its results to regular training for aspiring principals aligned with the PPSSH: its “Becoming a School Head” program trains TICs, OICs and designated school heads (p. 20). Regional offices of the lowest regions saw the results as a call to strengthen division support and recognized that local mentoring and technical assistance are critical (p. 21). The brief suggests that access to preparation explains the regional gaps; its data show the gaps, not their cause.

The pattern two years later. The FY 2025 NASH has a four-domain level with the same rule as Category A: 65 or higher overall and in at least four domains. The national memoranda give no results by region, but eight regional offices published their own; the FY 2025 figures below come from the posts on those results. The eighth, the Negros Island Region, was created in 2024 and has no FY 2023 figure; the brief counts its divisions under Regions VI and VII. Region VII’s FY 2025 figures exclude Negros Oriental and Siquijor. The NASH scores items differently (0 to 3 instead of right or wrong), and its takers differ, so the two columns are not a trend.

Region FY 2023 NQESH, Category A FY 2025 NASH Batch 1, four domains FY 2025 NASH Batch 2, four domains
National 26.4% 25.6% 25.9%
Region I 38% 56.5% 52.7%
Region V 29% not published 17.1%
Region VII 24% 28.6% 26.3%
Caraga 23% 19.6% not published
Region VIII 22% 19.5% 15.4%
Region XII 21% 13.5% not published
Region IX 14% 14.1% 30.2%, driven by one division

Region I stayed far ahead, and Regions VIII and XII stayed below the national share; Region V, above it in 2023, was below it in Batch 2. The national share at the top level has stayed near one in four across three administrations. All three converted standardized (z) scores to the scale of 1 to 100, so that steadiness may reflect the scoring method as much as the takers; NASH Results 2025 Explained sets out why.

Did schools led by Category A heads have better learning results?

Not in the brief’s comparison. The brief linked the schools of acting school heads who took the NQESH to their ELLNA and CRLA results (pp. 28–30). The ELLNA is the end-of-Grade 3 key stage test; the CRLA is a reading assessment for Grades 1 to 3 (p. 11).

Acting head’s FY 2023 NQESH category ELLNA median ELLNA mean CRLA weighted reading score, start CRLA, end CRLA gain
A 70.8 77.1 311.7 405.3 93.6
B 77.1 78.9 308.5 401.4 92.8
C 83.7 86.1 306.8 402.3 95.5

SIKAP, Figures 13 and 14 (pp. 29–30). ELLNA “Total Score” and CRLA “Average Weighted Reading Score” are the brief’s measures; it does not define their scales further.

Schools led by Category C acting heads had the highest ELLNA scores, and all three groups gained about the same on the CRLA. The brief gives two counts for the ELLNA comparison: 345 matched schools (Kruskal-Wallis p = 0.0106) and 5,297 (one-way ANOVA p = 1.31E-05, the figures it also gives for the CRLA), so how many schools stand behind the ELLNA figures is unclear. For the CRLA, the brief does not say whether its test compares the starting scores, the ending scores or the gains.

The brief reads the results as showing that heads in the lower categories “are capable of facilitating measurable improvements”, working from “experience and intuition, but without formal training or alignment to the national standards” (p. 28). It also says school resources, teacher quality, learners’ backgrounds and division support moderate the link between readiness and outcomes (p. 29), and it left school resources outside the analysis “due to data limitations” (p. 10). The tests compare the three groups as they are, with no adjustment for school size, location, resources or learners’ starting levels. The table therefore cannot show whether an acting head’s category raises or lowers learning, in either direction. A separate comparison of schools with and without a School Principal item, adjusted for school conditions, is in CRLA Results in Schools With and Without a Principal; for reading a school’s results fairly, see How to Read a School’s CRLA Results Fairly.

The brief’s ten recommendations

The brief groups its recommendations into four stages, and its roadmap (Figure 15, pp. 44–45) marks each as an immediate imperative or quick win (high impact and easy to do), a strategic lever (more effort or coordination) or a transformational imperative (resource-intensive and long-term). Recommendation 4 is not placed on the roadmap.

No. Recommendation What it proposes Stage and priority
1 Fund and institutionalize a leadership development program for incoming principals A national program in five phases (below) (p. 36) Professionalizing the Pathway; transformational
2 Set a standard Principalship Pipeline Ratio The ratio of qualified aspirants to expected vacancies over a horizon such as three years, from division vacancy and retirement projections (p. 38) Preparing the Pipeline; quick win
3 Identify high-potential teachers early Superintendents rank applicants in each division, guided by the merit criteria of education, training, experience, performance, accomplishments, application and potential (p. 38) Preparing the Pipeline; quick win
4 Prioritize Master Teacher I and above for principalship preparation Use the career progression framework of DepEd-DBM Joint Circular No. 01, s. 2025 to draw candidates from higher-ranking teachers (p. 39) Not placed
5 Integrate the PPSSH into graduate programs Build instructional leadership, strategic planning and school management into master’s curricula (p. 39) Preparing the Pipeline; strategic lever
6 Promote conducive training for teachers Incentives, protected time and accessible pathways; teachers report heavy documentation for training, and “In some schools, participation in external training is even discouraged or frowned upon” (p. 40) Promoting Excellence; strategic lever
7 Provide open standardized online courses Self-paced PPSSH courses on DepEd platforms, with micro-credentials, open to teachers still deciding on leadership (p. 40) Professionalizing the Pathway; quick win
8 Support sustained development Refresher courses, retooling and post-appointment coaching, tied to PPSSH career stages and annual development plans (p. 40) Promoting Excellence; transformational
9 Share good local practice Knowledge-sharing events and a searchable repository of division practices such as mentoring and onboarding, with NEAP guidance (p. 41) Promoting Excellence; transformational
10 Strengthen performance monitoring of principals Evaluation that links leadership practice to school outcomes and teacher development, used for support as well as accountability (p. 41) Profiling Performance; strategic lever

The program in Recommendation 1 has five phases (p. 36):

  1. Pre-training. Self-paced online modules on the PPSSH domains, as a prerequisite and filter.
  2. Diagnostics. Candidates nominated by the Schools Division Superintendent (SDS), based on the pipeline ratio, take the NASH. Interventions are based on the results through DUNONG (Dashboard for Understanding NQESH Outcomes and Grade-generation System), an application “developed by DepEd, through ECAIR”.
  3. Core training. Blended training with workshops, case-based learning, role-playing and planning simulations, built around the five domains.
  4. Immersion and practicum. A “shadow principalship” under a mentor-principal, with a capstone project on learning outcomes, teacher development or community partnerships.
  5. Assessment and certification. Performance tasks, principal simulations and portfolios evaluated by certified leadership assessors.

ECAIR says DUNONG is in use. Its project page of May 31, 2026, which expands the name as “Dashboard for Understanding NASH Outcomes and Grade-Generation System”, says the platform has processed the results of both FY 2025 NASH batches and helps DepEd generate the Individual Development Reports; see DUNONG: The Platform That Scores the NASH, Explained.

The brief draws on preparation abroad, as its sources describe it (pp. 37–39):

System Preparation the brief describes
Malaysia The National Professional Qualification for Educational Leaders (NPQEL 2.0, 2018), a mandatory blended program of three months and three weeks, with a five-day leadership apprenticeship and a six-week job-shadowing placement of at least 18 days. A 1:3 policy: three certified candidates for every headship vacancy, replacing an earlier 1:1 system
Canada (Ontario) The Principal’s Qualification Program: 250 hours of content and a 60-hour practicum leading a collaborative inquiry with a mentor; funded mentoring for new principals in their first two years
South Korea Points from experience, evaluations and service qualify a teacher for principal training; a qualifying exam then leads to a certificate
Taiwan A 2- to 3-month pre-service orientation; teachers rise through administrative ranks before the qualifying exam
Singapore “Select then train”: teachers are assessed for leadership potential early and moved up through department head and vice principal; the 17-week full-time Management and Leadership in Schools program prepares middle managers

Where DepEd policy stands in November 2026

From NQESH to NASH: results that lead to development

DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025 (August 11, 2025) renamed the NQESH the NASH. DepEd Memorandum No. 044, s. 2026 calls it “a developmental assessment tool designed to identify areas for improvement and support leadership growth” (para. 2). Items are now scored 0 to 3 instead of right or wrong (para. 4.a), and each level comes with a next step:

Competency level FY 2025 Batch 1 FY 2025 Batch 2 What follows (DM 044, s. 2026, para. 5)
Meeting PPSSH standards in four domains 2,899 (25.6%) 6,180 (25.91%) Prospective candidates for entry-level School Principal positions, subject to the qualification standards and hiring guidelines
Meeting PPSSH standards in three domains 1,509 (13.3%) 2,591 (10.86%) Prospective candidates on the same terms; a Targeted Development Program (TDP) from NEAP “is required within three months of appointment”
With Developmental Areas 6,900 (61.0%) 15,077 (63.22%) Professional Development Interventions (PDI) from NEAP and a Work Application Plan (WAP) certified by the SDS before being considered for School Principal I
Completed the assessment 11,308 23,848

Batch 1: DepEd Memorandum No. 097, s. 2025; Batch 2: DM 044, s. 2026.

Unlike Categories B and C of the FY 2023 NQESH (see above), takers With Developmental Areas now have a route to candidacy: the PDI and an SDS-certified WAP.

NEAP’s development programs

NEAP ran the PDI for Batch 1 and, under DM-OULS-2026-397 of the Office of the Undersecretary for Learning System (September 7, 2026), runs the TDP and PDI for Batch 2. The Schools Division of Zamboanga del Norte disseminated it in Division Memorandum No. 524, s. 2026 (October 1, 2026). Both programs follow an “Acquire—Apply—Demonstrate” sequence (para. 2), and they cover much of what Recommendation 1 asked for:

Brief’s proposed phase NASH TDP and PDI (DM-OULS-2026-397 and its Enclosure No. 2)
Pre-training: online modules Phase 1, E-Learning: curated LinkedIn Learning pathways and DepEd resources, online sessions and domain-based assessments
Diagnostics through the NASH The NASH competency level and domain profile decide the program: TDP for three-domain takers, PDI for takers With Developmental Areas (paras. 5–6)
Core training Phase 1 sessions and Phase 2, Job-Embedded Learning, with coaching and guided application
Immersion and practicum Phase 3, Workplace Practice (PDI only): the participant carries out a Workplace Application Plan (the Work Application Plan of DM 044, s. 2026) in their own school and submits a Workplace Application Accomplishment Report; there is no shadow principalship
Assessment and certification Phase certificates; a Certificate of Completion from NEAP; the SDS approves and certifies the WAP and the report

The guidelines cover Batch 2 takers who “have met the minimum overall rating threshold, with identified domain-level developmental needs”, and Batch 1 PDI participants who did not finish Phase 1 (para. 4); they do not define the threshold. A taker With Developmental Areas whose overall score was below 65 should check the official participant list (para. 12) with the SDO’s Human Resource Development unit.

The coaches are the closest match to the brief’s mentor-principals. Pending a certification mechanism, Public Schools District Supervisors, Chief Education Supervisors, Education Program Supervisors, School Principals II to IV, and others with school-head experience who passed the Principal’s Test, NQESH or NASH may serve. A coach must have trained with NEAP as a coach and mentor, and a one-to-one ratio is “strongly encouraged” (Enclosure Nos. 2 and 3). The timeline runs Phase 1 from October 1 to 31, 2026, Phase 2 from November 9, 2026 to January 15, 2027, and Phase 3 from January 25 to July 30, 2027 (Enclosure No. 1). Participants who have received a notice of appointment as Principal I get priority (para. 4).

One point runs against Recommendation 6. The memorandum gives no protected time: the programs run “without disruption to regular office operations”, and activities beyond office hours “shall not warrant the grant of Compensatory Time-Off (CTO)” (para. 8).

NASH TDP and PDI: Phases, Coaches and Certificates covers the program in full, and NASH Work Application Plan (WAP): A Guide With Example the WAP and WAAR forms.

Qualification standards and selection

The brief describes the old qualification standards for Principal I, which required a bachelor’s degree (p. 6). DepEd Order No. 019, s. 2025 replaced them. School Principal I now needs a master’s degree in Education, Educational Management or Educational Leadership, or a master’s in a relevant learning area with at least 9 units in Management; 5 years of teaching and 1 year of relevant experience in learning area coordination, subject area supervision, school management and operations, or instructional supervision; 32 hours of training in curriculum, pedagogy, school management and operations, or instructional leadership, acquired within the last 5 years; and RA 1080 (Teacher) eligibility. ECP Qualification Standards Under DO 019, s. 2025 has the full tables.

The brief describes the 100-point system of Enclosure No. 3 to DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2023 (p. 7), which still governs natural vacancies as amended. The same weights apply to reclassification under DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2025: education, training and experience (10 points each), performance (25), outstanding accomplishments (10), application of education (10), application of learning and development (10) and potential (15) (Encl. No. 3, Sec. 32). For School Principal I, potential is a 10-point written examination and a 5-point Behavioral Events Interview (Sec. 38). The brief says the division’s Human Resource Merit Promotion and Selection Board (HRMPSB) is “chaired by the Schools Division Superintendent” (p. 7). Under DepEd’s Merit Selection Plan, the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent chairs it, and the board recommends candidates to the appointing officer (DepEd Order No. 019, s. 2022, Secs. 83–84). DO 024’s reclassification guidelines add a special HRMPSB for school principal positions, also chaired by the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent (Encl. No. 3, Sec. 20). A first appointment as principal requires passing the school head assessment (DepEd Order No. 021, s. 2024, Item 27). School Principal I to IV: Promotion Under the ECP explains both routes.

Recommendation 4 is partly in place for reclassification. The DepEd-DBM Joint Circular No. 01, s. 2025 lists Master Teachers I and II, and during the transition period Assistant School Principals and Head Teachers, as the positions that may be reclassified to School Principal I; no Teacher position appears (Form No. 1-B). Republic Act No. 12288 (September 12, 2025) now makes Teacher I to Master Teacher I the base of the system: “Thereafter, a Master Teacher I may opt to pursue a career line in teaching or school administration” (Sec. 5). Its implementing rules were signed on August 17, 2026; What RA 12288 Changes in Teacher Career Progression tracks their status. Applications for a vacant principal item are open to other positions, but a promotion may not exceed three salary grades above the applicant’s present position unless a Civil Service Commission exemption applies (DO 024, s. 2025, Encl. No. 1, Sec. 20(b)).

The shortage of principals in late 2026

The brief opens with “Nearly 25,000 public schools” without appointed principals (EDCOM II, 2025) (p. 2). That is the EDCOM II Year Two Report’s count of 24,916 of 45,199 schools in SY 2023–2024. The EDCOM II Final Report counts 18,576 schools (48%) with no principal items in SY 2024–2025; EDCOM II’s Three Reports explains the different counts. At the Senate Finance Committee hearing of DepEd’s 2027 budget on October 16, 2026, as reported by GMA News, Undersecretary Wilfredo Cabral said 22,000 of the over 45,000 schools have principals. Secretary Sonny Angara said 6,000 principal positions were secured in 2026, and DepEd said its request for more than 14,000 new principal positions in 2027 was not funded. Angara said takers who failed “only certain parts or certain domains” need not retake the assessment but can “remediate and pass the professional development area or intervention that’s needed”, the PDI route of DM 044, s. 2026. DepEd Principals and Head Teachers per School, SY 2023-2024 shows which schools lack one.

What this means for school heads

The brief’s findings point to concrete steps for aspiring and acting school heads.

  1. Do not count on experience alone. Elementary school heads, TICs and OICs had lower odds of Category A than teachers with no designation, even with position held equal. Study the PPSSH (DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020) and the orders behind each strand now, not after the assessment. The NASH study guide and RA 9155 Duties of DepEd School Heads are good starting points.
  2. Start with Domains 2 and 4. One of them was the weakest for every designation, and fewer than half of takers passed Domain 2 in 15 of 16 regions. Study Domain 2 (records, finances, school facilities, personnel) and Domain 4 (professional development of yourself and your teachers). Elementary school heads should add Domain 3. Domains 1 and 5 complete the set.
  3. Read your own results. If you took the NASH, your Individual Certificate of Rating (DM 044, s. 2026, para. 7) and, for Batch 1, your Individual Development Report, which summarizes “strengths, areas for improvement, and recommended developmental interventions” (DM 097, s. 2025, para. 9), show where to work. Plan from them, not from the overall score.
  4. Make graduate study count for the PPSSH. A degree alone did not secure Category A for most holders. Choose course projects, a thesis or action research on a real problem in your school, such as a finance, staffing or teacher-development problem, rather than a topic chosen only to finish a degree.
  5. If you have long tenure in one position, refresh on current policy. The orders that govern school-based management, school forms, learner assessment and school funds have changed in recent years. Recheck each domain against the current issuance.
  6. Meet every TDP or PDI requirement on time. Know your phase dates, meet your SDO-assigned coach regularly, and keep your Phase certificates, Workplace Application Plan, accomplishment report and the SDS certification. Under DM 044, s. 2026, the PDI and WAP are conditions before you can be considered for School Principal I.
  7. Check the qualification standards before the next call. Compare your master’s degree, relevant experience and training hours (32 hours in curriculum, pedagogy, school management and operations, or instructional leadership within the last 5 years) with DO 019, s. 2025, and keep the documents that prove each.
  8. If you already lead a school, support teachers who aspire to lead. The brief heard of schools where external training is “discouraged or frowned upon”. Releasing teachers for training, delegating real responsibilities such as coordinating a program or the School Improvement Plan team, and coaching them is Domain 4 work: strand 4.5 (professional development of school personnel) and strand 4.6 (leadership development in individuals and teams).

Reading a study like SIKAP is itself PPSSH practice. Indicator 1.4.1 reads: “Identify relevant research findings from reliable sources in facilitating data-driven and evidence-based innovations to improve school performance.” Read its figures with their limits, as above, before citing them in a School Improvement Plan or a division presentation.

Frequently asked questions

What is the SIKAP study?

SIKAP, Strengthening and Improving the Knowledge Advancement of Aspiring Principal (SIKAP) in the Philippines, is a policy brief by Angel Derrickvhel Q. Tan and Rex Gregor M. Laylo, published by SEAMEO INNOTECH with ECAIR. It analyzes the FY 2023 NQESH results of 21,803 teachers, links acting heads’ results to their schools’ ELLNA and CRLA scores, and makes ten recommendations for principal preparation. ECAIR lists it as “Linking School-Leadership Exam Outcomes to School Performance (SIKAP)”, dated December 2025.

Is SIKAP a DepEd policy?

No. It is a research brief, and its recommendations are proposals. ECAIR describes it as “Adopted by NEAP and EDCOM II”. The rules for aspiring principals are in DepEd’s issuances: DM 044, s. 2026 for NASH results, DM-OULS-2026-397 for the TDP and PDI, DO 019, s. 2025 for the qualification standards, and DO 007, s. 2023, as amended, and DO 024, s. 2025 for selection.

Did FY 2023 NQESH Category B and C takers become eligible for appointment after training?

No. DM 059, s. 2024 made Category A takers eligible for appointment to an entry-level principal position and said Category B and C takers “May retake the next NQESH” (para. 6). The coaching and NEAP certification route applied to FY 2021 Category B takers (DM 013, s. 2024, para. 7). FY 2023 Category B and C takers could take the FY 2025 NASH Batch 2 without meeting the qualification standards (DM-OUHROD-2025-3318).

Does a master’s degree or doctorate guarantee passing the NASH?

No. In the FY 2023 NQESH, 76% of master’s-degree holders and 67% of doctoral-degree holders did not reach Category A (SIKAP, p. 20). Graduate study went with higher odds: doctoral units about 2.2 times and a master’s degree about 1.5 times the odds of a bachelor’s-degree holder (p. 23). The data do not show which part of graduate study helps; the brief proposes building PPSSH competencies into master’s programs (Recommendation 5, p. 39).

Do schools led by higher-scoring heads have better learning results?

The brief’s comparison does not show it. Schools led by Category C acting heads had a median ELLNA score of 83.7, against 70.8 for Category A, and all three groups gained about 93 to 96 points on the CRLA (pp. 29–30). The comparison makes no adjustment for school size, resources or learners’ starting levels, so it cannot show whether a head’s category affects learning.

Sources

The study

  • Tan, A. D. Q., and Laylo, R. G. M. Strengthening and Improving the Knowledge Advancement of Aspiring Principal (SIKAP) in the Philippines. SEAMEO INNOTECH and Education Center for AI Research, copyright 2025; licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. PDF on the ECAIR website. Pages used: 2, 4–7, 10–11, 14–25, 28–30, 32–41, 44–46.
  • Education Center for AI Research, Publications, listing “Linking School-Leadership Exam Outcomes to School Performance (SIKAP)”, accessed November 6, 2026.

DepEd issuances

  • DepEd Memorandum No. 013, s. 2024, Administration of the Fiscal Year 2023 National Qualifying Examination for School Heads, February 26, 2024 (paras. 2, 5–7).
  • DepEd Memorandum No. 059, s. 2024, Results of the Fiscal Year 2023 National Qualifying Examination for School Heads and Fiscal Year 2021 NQESH Category B Evaluation and Certification, October 18, 2024 (paras. 1–2, 5–6).
  • DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025, Administration of the National Assessment for School Heads for Fiscal Year 2025, August 11, 2025.
  • DepEd Memorandum No. 097, s. 2025, Results of the National Assessment for School Heads for Fiscal Year 2025 (Batch 1), October 21, 2025.
  • DepEd Memorandum No. 044, s. 2026, Results of the National Assessment for School Heads for Fiscal Year 2025 (Batch 2), July 4, 2026 (paras. 2, 4–6).
  • DM-OUHROD-2025-3318, Updates and Instructions on the Administration of the FY 2025 National Assessment for School Heads (NASH) - Batch 2, November 17, 2025 (DM 044, s. 2026, para. 3); see the qualification standards FAQ.
  • DM-OULS-2026-397, Guidelines on the Conduct of the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH) Targeted Development Program (TDP) and Professional Development Intervention (PDI), Office of the Undersecretary for Learning System, September 7, 2026, with Enclosure Nos. 1–3; disseminated in Schools Division of Zamboanga del Norte Division Memorandum No. 524, s. 2026, October 1, 2026.
  • DepEd Order No. 019, s. 2025, Amended Qualification Standards for Teacher I–III, Master Teacher I–IV, and School Principal I–IV Positions, and the Qualification Standards for Newly Created Teacher IV–VII and Master Teacher V Positions, June 24, 2025.
  • DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2025, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Expanded Career Progression System for Teachers and School Heads in the Department of Education, August 28, 2025 (Encl. No. 1, Sec. 20(b); Encl. No. 3, Secs. 20, 32, 38).
  • DepEd Order No. 021, s. 2024, Amendments to DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2023 (Guidelines on Recruitment, Selection, and Appointment in the Department of Education), December 23, 2024 (Item 27).
  • DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2023, Guidelines on Recruitment, Selection, and Appointment in the Department of Education, March 22, 2023 (Encl. No. 3).
  • DepEd Order No. 019, s. 2022, The Department of Education Merit Selection Plan (Secs. 83–84).
  • DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads, September 7, 2020.
  • DepEd Order No. 013, s. 2025, Establishment of the Center for Artificial Intelligence Research for the Department of Education, April 29, 2025 (paras. 2, 4, 8).
  • DepEd-DBM Joint Circular No. 01, s. 2025, Modified Position Classification and Compensation Scheme and System of Career Progression of Teachers and School Heads in the Public Basic Education System, February 19, 2025 (Form No. 1-B).

Laws

  • Republic Act No. 12288, the Career Progression System for Public School Teachers and School Leaders Act, approved September 12, 2025 (Sec. 5).

Reports and news

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: the SIKAP policy brief (SEAMEO INNOTECH and ECAIR); DepEd Memoranda No. 013 and 059, s. 2024, No. 069 and 097, s. 2025, and No. 044, s. 2026; DM-OULS-2026-397; DepEd Orders No. 019 and 024, s. 2025, No. 021, s. 2024, No. 007, s. 2023, No. 019, s. 2022, and No. 024, s. 2020; DepEd-DBM Joint Circular No. 01, s. 2025; RA 12288; EDCOM II reports; GMA News. NASH Reviewer is not affiliated with DepEd.