SIP Communication Plan: Structure, Style and a Sample

A SIP communication plan is a short written plan that says who needs to hear what about the School Improvement Plan (SIP), through which channel, when, from whom, at what cost, and how the school will know it worked. The Department of Education (DepEd) prescribes no template for it. DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 makes the School Report Card (SRC) its central tool for communicating school performance to stakeholders, and DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2026, the Media Management Guidelines, sets the rules for school social media pages and media interviews. The sections below combine those rules with open planning frameworks and end with a full sample plan, which is ours. A plan’s audiences come from the school’s stakeholder analysis; see Stakeholder Analysis for DepEd School Heads: A Guide.

The guide is written for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH), for new school heads and for teachers-in-charge. In the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), adopted by DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, this work falls mainly under strand 5.4, Communication. Its Career Stage 1 indicator asks for “competent skills in speaking and writing, as well as in utilizing communication platforms, in communicating with teachers, learners, parents and other stakeholders”. Strands 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 5.1, 5.3 and 5.5 also apply, as the table near the end shows.

Key points

• DepEd prescribes no SIP communication plan template. DO 44, s. 2015 lists a “communication plan” only as an output of Step 9, with no form. The sample plan here is ours.
• The SRC is DepEd’s communication tool for the SIP, but not a whole plan. DO 44 calls it “a communication and advocacy tool intended for internal and external stakeholders”, presented at least at the mid-year and year-end assemblies. A plan also covers every audience, every project message, and the replies.
• In 2014, fewer than half of parents knew of their school’s plan, a World Bank survey found. The survey predates DO 44.
• A complete plan has nine parts, drawn from the UK’s OASIS framework, WHO’s principles and DO 44’s AIP template.
• Write in the reader’s language. DO 44 allows the mother tongue in SRC interpretations, and DO 007, s. 2026 encourages Filipino and the mother tongue in captions.
• The school head approves every post and needs the SDS’s approval to speak to the media. School heads “may be authorized to speak on local school matters, subject to prior approval from the SDS”.
• Learners’ personal data stay off public channels without consent. DepEd Order No. 017, s. 2025 bars disclosing learners’ personally identifiable information to the public, including on school social media, without explicit consent.

What is a SIP communication plan?

A SIP communication plan turns the improvement plan into a schedule of messages, with a way for each group to answer back. The SIP is the parent document: DO 44, s. 2015 calls the SIP “the basis for the school’s Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) and other specific plans”, such as the child protection, disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) and learning action cell (LAC) plans. A communication plan belongs in that family. It serves the SIP’s objectives and does not set its own.

Why does a SIP need a communication plan?

DO 44’s first paragraph aims to make education services more responsive “through an enhanced school planning and communication process”, and the SRC’s objective “is to increase the participation and involvement of the community and other stakeholders”. People cannot support a plan they have never heard of.

The World Bank’s 2016 report on its Philippine expenditure tracking and service delivery survey (PETS-QSDS) found that in 2014 “fewer than half of all parents interviewed were aware that their school had an improvement plan”; awareness beyond the parents invited to help prepare it “was rare” (p. 76). Only around half of parents said they had been given a school report card “or even any information in the previous two school years” (p. 79). The survey predates DO 44, so it describes a starting point, not today’s schools. The app’s policy review, Is the School Improvement Plan working?, puts the finding in context.

Indicator 28 of the School-Based Management (SBM) checklist in DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024 reads: “The school maintains an average rating of satisfactory from its internal and external stakeholders”. DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022 asks the School Governance Council (SGC) to “support the dissemination of pertinent school data and information” through the SRC, the transparency board and other tools. It also asks the SGC to relay “the learners’ and stakeholders’ feedback and satisfaction” on the SIP and AIP to the planning team.

Is there a DepEd template for a SIP communication plan?

No. As of October 2026, DepEd asks schools to communicate in several places, but gives no template for communicating the SIP:

• DO 44, Step 9. After a solution is tested on a small group, the output check lists “Communication plan to concerned stakeholders (process owners)”, the people who will run it. No form is given.
• DO 007, s. 2024. During its three-year transition, “Schools shall develop a plan ensuring that their internal and external stakeholders also become well-informed about the revised guidelines”. No format is set.
• Emergencies. DepEd Order No. 014, s. 2026 requires an emergency call tree in each school’s Learning and Service Continuity Plan (LSCP) every school year.
• Face-to-face readiness (2021–2022). The School Safety Assessment Tool in DepEd Memorandum No. 030, s. 2022 required that “The school has developed a communication plan”, with a platform for learners, parents and teachers and a parent contact list. It covered COVID-19 reopening only.
• National programs. DepEd Order No. 34, s. 2009 and DepEd Order No. 59, s. 2017 mention national communication plans, for school-based management and for iron and folic acid supplementation.

So a school builds its own plan, or uses its division’s template if there is one.

Start from the stakeholder analysis

A communication plan is the second half of a job that starts with stakeholder analysis. Kammi Schmeer’s guidelines for the USAID-funded Partnerships for Health Reform project end by saying that strategies for each group “should be developed in further detail through concrete action plans, communication plans, and negotiation packages” (Schmeer, 1999, p. 24). Carry into the plan the groups, what each knows now and needs to do, whom each trusts, and how each can be reached.

The structure of a communication plan: nine parts

No single standard exists, but official frameworks agree on the core. The UK Government Communication Service’s OASIS is “a five-step framework”: Objectives, Audience and insights, Strategy and ideas, Implementation, and Scoring and evaluation. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2017 framework adds six principles: communication should be accessible, actionable, credible and trusted, relevant, timely and understandable (p. 3). DO 44’s AIP template adds the columns a DepEd school already uses for every activity: person(s) responsible, schedule and venue, budget per activity, and budget source.

Tips for each part

• Situation and purpose. Write the purpose as one sentence, which WHO calls a “single overarching communication outcome (SOCO)” (p. 36). Every other part serves it.
• Objectives. OASIS asks for SMART objectives and adds that “Every objective must be outcome-focused”: “7 in 10 parents can state the goal” is a result; “conduct three meetings” is an activity.
• Audiences. Include the gatekeeper, whom OASIS describes as the one “who controls access to the audience”, such as a barangay official who can give the school time at a barangay meeting. The US Federal Plain Language Guidelines say: “Address separate audiences separately” (p. 3).
• Key messages. One idea and one action per message, the same core facts everywhere, and “test key messages with representative groups before implementation” (OASIS).
• Channels. WHO sorts channels into mass media, organization and community channels such as “meetings at schools”, and interpersonal channels, which it calls “often the most trusted channels for health information” (p. 5). OASIS asks planners to account for “audiences with low or no digital access”.
• Timing. “At the minimum”, DO 44 has the SRC presented at “the mid-year (October) and year-end (March) general assemblies”. DO 44’s months fit its 2015 school year, which ran from June to April like SY 2026–2027, so October is still mid-year. Under the three-term calendar of DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, also use the PTA meetings that close each term. DO 007, s. 2026 gives a sample page content calendar in Annex D.
• Messengers. Advisers usually reach parents better than the school head does; the approval line is fixed by DO 007, s. 2026.
• Resources. Put each activity into the AIP with a budget source; the MOOE guide explains what school MOOE can cover.
• Feedback. Epstein’s framework for school, family and community partnerships asks schools to “Create two-way communication channels from school to home and from home to school” (Epstein, 2004, p. 16).

Writing style: how to write the plan and its messages

The plan is a working document for the planning team, the SGC and the Schools Division Office (SDO); the messages are for parents, learners, the barangay and the public. Official documents follow the DepEd Manual of Style, adopted by DepEd Order No. 030, s. 2019. Its first principle of business writing reads: “CLARITY. Keep it clear and simple. Avoid using jargon. Use the active voice as much as possible.” It prescribes American spelling (p. 35), and DepEd Memorandum No. 082, s. 2022 requires the block letter format for letters. A letter to the barangay council uses that format. A note to parents keeps the DMOS rules where they apply (American spelling for English words, the UP or Komisyon ng Wikang Filipino dictionary for Filipino words), and the plain-language rules below shape its wording.

Plain language: the core rules

The US Federal Plain Language Guidelines (2011) are a long-standing public reference. Their main rules:

• Know the reader first. Ask “Who is my audience?” and “What questions will my audience have?” (p. 2).
• Put the bottom line first. “Put the most important information at the beginning” (p. 5). WHO agrees: “organize information so the most important points come first” (p. 36).
• Use the active voice. “Passive voice obscures who is responsible for what” (p. 20).
• Write short sentences and paragraphs. “Express only one idea in each sentence” (p. 50). The guidelines recommend paragraphs of “no more than 150 words in three to eight sentences” (p. 66); notes to parents should be much shorter.
• Drop DepEd shorthand. PIA, AIP, CI, MPS and LIS mean little to most parents. WHO advises using “simple language to explain the meaning of technical terms” (p. 36).

UNICEF and WHO Europe’s guidance for school administrators gives the reason: “If parents/caregivers, teachers and students have to read a message several times to understand it, they are unlikely to act on it” (p. 12). As of October 2026, no Philippine law requires government documents to be written in plain language. House Bill No. 2880 (filed August 4, 2025) would require it, but it is still a pending bill, not a law.

Write in the language families use

DO 44 says SRC interpretations should use “the language most easily understood by the stakeholders”, and its guidebook adds: “The mother-tongue may be used.” DO 007, s. 2026 says that in captions “the use of Filipino and the mother tongue/local language/dialect is encouraged”. Epstein (2004) asks that communications be “clear, timely, accessible, and in languages that families can understand” (p. 17).

Write the parent version first in the home language, the way a teacher would say it at a class meeting, rather than translating an English draft word for word. Use counts parents can picture (“12 of our 46 Grade 5 learners”), as the school improvement plan guide shows for the SRC.

Tone for parents and tone for officials

The facts stay the same; the voice changes. Parents get half a page in the home language, with counts, one action and a contact person. Offices get a block-format letter or short report with rates against the target, ending in a specific request.

Before and after: two examples (ours)

A note to parents. Before:

Please be informed that the school will conduct a Reading Intervention Program for learners at the frustration and instructional levels in Grades 4 to 6 pursuant to the SIP. Parents are enjoined to support the said endeavor.

After, in Filipino, sent only to the families of learners in the program:

Simula Lunes, may dagdag na 20 minutong pagbasa araw-araw ang inyong anak sa paaralan. Pakinggan po ninyong magbasa ang inyong anak nang 15 minuto sa bahay tuwing may pasok, at pirmahan ang reading log. Kung may tanong, tawagan po si Gng. [pangalan ng adviser] sa [numero].

The second says what starts, what the parent does, and whom to call, and drops “frustration level”, a label parents may hear as an insult.

A post on the school page. Before: a photo of six named learners holding reading certificates, captioned “Congratulations to our former non-readers who are now readers!!!” After: a photo of a reading session taken from behind, with no faces or name tags, captioned:

Our Grade 4 to 6 reading project is in its third month. More than half of the learners who started below grade level now read at grade level. Thank you, parents, for listening to your children read at home. #DepEdPhilippines

The first labels identifiable children; the second reports a group result. #DepEdPhilippines is the standard hashtag DO 007, s. 2026 sets for posts.

Accessibility, inclusion and testing

DO 007, s. 2026 lists four checks for content “accessible to all audiences”: readability and clear structure, color contrast, “captions or subtitles” on videos, and “text alternatives for non-text elements”. It asks page managers to “Use gender-fair language and images across all platforms”. For parents who read little, UNICEF and WHO Europe suggest a dedicated hotline (p. 10), such as the adviser’s phone.

Test before sending. The plain language guidelines describe paraphrase testing, in which readers explain a passage in their own words (p. 102). A school version: read the note to three parents at dismissal and ask what it asks them to do. UNICEF and WHO Europe advise testing a new channel “with a small group” first (p. 9).

Channels a public school uses, and the rules for each

Epstein’s network suggests practices such as “Conferences with every parent at least once a year” and an “Annual survey of families”. Keep channels consistent: messaging across them “should be consistent so as to not cause confusion” (UNICEF and WHO Europe, p. 10). Sequencing messages to teachers during a change is covered in the change management guide, and crisis messages in the El Niño continuity guide.

The school’s social media page under DO 007, s. 2026

DO 007, s. 2026 applies to “all DepEd personnel at all levels of governance”. Its main rules for a school page:

• The school head is the Head of Office (“the School Head at the school level”) and “the approving authority for posting all the content”. “All posts shall be approved and reviewed by the Head of Office.” Annex C gives a sample approval flow.
• The team. The School Information Coordinator (SIC) is the account manager; the school head designates community managers and contributors. “At least one member of the social media team shall have a permanent employment status” with administrator access.
• Planning. Content aligns with the school calendar, follows the DepEd Manual of Style, and gives DRRM announcements priority. Annex D is a sample content calendar.
• Corrections. Errors and “wrongly uploaded photos” “shall be rectified immediately”, and the school may issue a clarificatory statement “upon the clearance of the Head of Office”.
• Off limits. Confidential information, monetized content, and “Doxing”, publishing a person’s identifying information without consent.
• Replies to the public should be concise, positive, congenial and accurate.

Media interviews: who may speak for the school

“The SDS shall serve as the official spokesperson for the SDO.” At the school level, “School Heads may be authorized to speak on local school matters, subject to prior approval from the SDS.” Teachers invited by the press or content creators “must first seek clearance”:

1. The teacher informs the school head of the invitation’s details. Where learners are expected to appear, the request includes “proof of prior consent in accordance with existing data privacy policies and DepEd child protection”.
2. The school head evaluates it and, if appropriate, endorses it to the SDS.
3. The SDS approves engagements that are local and involve no sensitive topic or high public visibility. Regional, national or sensitive ones go to the regional director, who endorses those with national visibility or high-stakes issues to the Public Affairs Service for final coordination. In time-sensitive cases, endorsements “should ideally be completed within two (2) hours”.

Only in urgent situations, such as an ongoing calamity affecting the school, may personnel skip clearance.

Privacy and protection: what never goes in a SIP message

SIP messages use school data, and much of it is about children. Four sets of rules apply:

• Republic Act No. 10173, the Data Privacy Act, allows processing of personal information subject to “the principles of transparency, legitimate purpose and proportionality” (Section 11). Consent must be “freely given, specific, informed” and “evidenced by written, electronic or recorded means” (Section 3(b)). The Act treats information about a person’s “health, education” as sensitive personal information (Section 3(l)), which may be processed only on the grounds in Section 13, such as consent “specific to the purpose”. Reading levels and scores are education data.
• DO 017, s. 2025, the enrollment policy, says personally identifiable information collected and processed “shall not be disclosed or disseminated to third parties, including to the public (i.e., social media accounts of the school, teachers, officials) without the explicit consent of the learner and their parents or legal guardian”, unless required by law or necessary for the data controller’s legitimate purposes. It calls the school “a data controller”. An earlier enrollment order, DepEd Order No. 035, s. 2022, named school heads “Data Compliance Officers at their respective levels of governance” for that year’s enrollment. DO 017, s. 2025, the enrollment policy now in force, does not repeat that designation.
• DO 007, s. 2026 requires photos and videos to follow “the data privacy principles of legitimate purpose, proportionality, and transparency”, with consent “evidenced by written, electronic, or recorded means”; Annex B is its suggested consent form. It points page managers to DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012, the Child Protection Policy.
• DepEd Order No. 006, s. 2026 requires “the utmost confidentiality” for information on “the identity and personal circumstances of all parties involved in an incident”. The child protection guide covers those cases.

Two cautions: a small group’s result can identify a child, and Annex B is broad. In it, the signer acknowledges “that the DepEd owns all rights to these images and recordings” and waives “any right to inspect or approve the use of the images”. Explain this to parents in their language, and give the page team a list of learners whose families declined.

Writing an effective SIP communication plan across the SIP cycle

Each step of the SIP has something to say to someone. The school improvement plan guide explains the steps; this table shows only the communication.

A sample SIP communication plan for one school year

Part A. Situation and purpose

Situation. The SIP aims to raise the share of Grade 4 to 6 learners reading at grade level from 52% to 75% by the end of Year 3, with a Year 1 target of 60%. The reading project depends on parents: learners read aloud at home for 15 minutes on school days and bring back a signed weekly log. At the last assembly, few parents could say what the SIP was about.

Purpose. Every Grade 4 to 6 family knows the school’s reading goal, knows how their child reads now, and listens to their child read at home on school days.

Part B. Objectives for Year 1

1. Awareness. By the Term 1 PTA meeting (September 9), at least 7 in 10 Grade 4 to 6 parents who attend can state the reading goal in their own words (two-question exit slip).
2. Action. In Terms 2 and 3, at least 6 in 10 Grade 4 to 6 families return the reading log in three of every four weeks.
3. Process owners. Before roll-out in Term 2, every Grade 4 to 6 adviser can explain the tested routine and knows how to report problems.
4. Support. By the end of Term 3, the barangay council has heard the mid-year reading results and acted on the school’s written request for reading volunteers.
5. Two-way. Every audience has a named channel for questions, and every logged question is answered within a week.

Part C. Audiences and key messages

Part D. Activity calendar

Part E. Rules every message follows

1. The school head approves every post before it goes out.
2. No learner’s name appears with a score, level, rank, attendance record or case detail; learners’ photos appear only with consent on file.
3. Parents get messages in their home language; letters to offices follow the DepEd Manual of Style.
4. Every message gives one action and one contact person.
5. Errors are corrected at once, with a note on what changed.
6. The school head speaks to the media on local school matters only with the SDS’s prior approval. A teacher or staff member who is invited informs the school head, who evaluates the request and, if it is appropriate, endorses it to the SDS for approval. In an urgent situation, such as an ongoing calamity, staff may skip clearance, as DO 007, s. 2026 allows.

Part F. How we will know it worked

Measuring whether communication worked

OASIS defines the three levels used in Part F: outputs, “The reach and experience delivered through communications activity”; outtakes, “What audiences think, feel or intend to do as a result of communications”; and outcomes, “The actual response and behaviour change observed”. Counting only outputs cannot show whether parents understood or acted. WHO advises starting with “simple metrics and methods” (p. 41): for a school, attendance by sector, exit slips, returned forms and logs, a yearly family survey, logged questions, and page reach.

Two DepEd mechanisms close the loop: the SGC relays stakeholders’ “feedback and satisfaction” to the planning team (DO 026, s. 2022), and the SBM self-assessment checks indicator 28 near the end of the school year. If exit slips show parents missed the reading goal, fix the message or the channel.

The evidence favors messages that go straight to families. J-PAL’s guidance for UNICEF, which summarizes randomized evaluations from other countries, reports that programs giving information directly to parents and students “have shown more consistent impacts on parental engagement and student learning” than school committee programs, whose impacts were “highly variable” (p. 3). Treat this as direction, not proof for your school.

Common mistakes in school communication plans

• Treating the SRC as the whole plan. The SRC reports school performance; a plan also carries each project’s messages to each audience, and the replies.
• One message for everyone, in English and jargon.
• No way to answer back. A one-way plan cannot learn what is not working.
• Posting learner data or photos without consent, or letting staff post without the school head’s approval.
• Speaking to the media without the SDS’s approval, even about good news.
• Hiding bad results. See the SIP guide’s advice on the SRC; the same holds for every message.
• No budget, no person responsible. Activities missing from the AIP rarely happen.
• A long plan nobody uses. Two to four pages, mostly tables, is enough.

What the school head does

1. Start from the stakeholder analysis. List the groups, what each knows and needs to do, and whom each trusts, as the stakeholder analysis guide shows.
2. Name the team. Work with the SIC as page manager, designate a community manager and contributors, and give a permanent employee administrator access.
3. Write a short plan with the planning team and the SGC. Tie each objective to a SIP objective and put each activity in the AIP with a person responsible and a budget source.
4. Set the rules first. You approve every post; collect photo consent early.
5. Write and test messages in the home language with a few parents.
6. Run the calendar: the SRC assemblies, the page calendar, PTA and SGC meetings, and reports to the barangay and the SDO.
7. Handle the media by the rules. Get the SDS’s prior approval before you speak, and evaluate teachers’ invitations before endorsing the appropriate ones to the SDS.
8. Fix errors at once and answer every question.
9. Measure and adjust each term, then use the SGC’s feedback and the SBM self-assessment to write next year’s plan into the AIP.

SIP communication and the PPSSH: strands and Career Stage 1 indicators

The PPSSH guide lists every indicator at all four career stages, and the Domain 5 guide reads strand 5.4 with DepEd data.

Practice: how the NASH may test this

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

Question 1

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

A Grade 6 adviser posts a photo of her class’s reading assessment results on the school’s Facebook page to motivate the learners. It shows each learner’s full name, reading level and score. You did not see the post before it went up, and some parents have already shared it. What is the most appropriate action?

• A. Leave the post up, since the results are accurate and parents have a right to know them, and ask the adviser to show you her posts in the future.
• B. Ask the adviser to edit the post to show only the learners’ initials, so that the class still sees its progress while the full names are protected.
• C. Have the post removed at once, inform the parents concerned, remind all staff that every post needs your approval and learner data need consent, and share class totals instead.
• D. Have the post removed at once and speak privately with the adviser, without informing the parents, so that the matter does not grow any bigger.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Accuracy is not the test. Identifiable learner data may not go on the school page without consent, and the post skipped the required approval.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). It sees the privacy problem but keeps the data public; initials with levels and scores still identify learners in a class.
• C (3 points, Relational). It removes the data, deals openly with the families affected, fixes the cause through the approval rule, and still reports progress safely.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Removing the post and correcting the adviser are right, but the cause is not fixed for other staff, and the families affected are left uninformed.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.3.1 asks for knowledge of policy implementation consistent with laws and issuances. Reading levels and scores are education data, which RA 10173 treats as sensitive personal information, and DO 017, s. 2025 bars disclosing learners’ personally identifiable information on “social media accounts of the school” without explicit consent. DO 007, s. 2026 makes the school head the approving authority for posts and says wrong posts “shall be rectified immediately”. Removing the post quietly fixes the content but not the practice.

Indicator 1.3.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of policy implementation and review to ensure that school operations are consistent with national and local laws, regulations and issuances.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 017, s. 2025, Section X; DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2026, Section V(B); Republic Act No. 10173, Sections 3(l) and 13; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 2

Indicator 5.1.1, Management of diverse relationships. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

A local radio station invites you to its live program next week to talk about your school’s home reading project, which raised reading levels in its first term. The station also asks you to bring two Grade 5 learners who improved the most so that they can read on air. What is the most appropriate response?

• A. Seek the SDS’s prior approval, prepare a few key messages with the school’s group results, and include the learners only if they and their parents give written consent.
• B. Accept the invitation, since the topic is local and positive, and ask the Grade 5 advisers which two learners read most confidently so that they can join you.
• C. Seek the SDS’s prior approval, prepare a few key messages with the school’s group results, and bring the two learners, since being on the radio will motivate them.
• D. Decline the invitation, since only the SDS may speak to the media for the division’s schools, and refer the station to the Division Information Officer.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (3 points, Relational). It follows the clearance rule, protects individual data, and treats the learners’ appearance as a separate decision that needs their own and their parents’ consent.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). It skips the SDS’s approval and exposes learners without consent.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). The approval is right, but it puts identifiable children, presented as the most improved readers, on air without consent, which is a privacy breach.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). It does no harm and respects the SDS’s role, but misreads the rule: school heads may speak on local school matters with the SDS’s prior approval.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.1.1 asks for skill in dealing with authorities, parents and other stakeholders. DO 007, s. 2026 says school heads “may be authorized to speak on local school matters, subject to prior approval from the SDS”, and asks staff who request clearance for engagements where learners will appear to attach “proof of prior consent”. DO 017, s. 2025 requires the explicit consent of the learner and their parents before a learner’s identifiable information goes public.

Indicator 5.1.1: Demonstrate skills in dealing with authorities, colleagues, parents and other stakeholders to encourage an enabling and supportive environment for learners.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2026, Section V(A); DepEd Order No. 017, s. 2025, Section X; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 3

Indicator 5.4.1, Communication. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

Your planning team wrote the school’s SIP communication plan in English, including a two-page letter to parents about the new home reading project. Most families in the school’s barangays speak Waray at home, and the advisers report that many parents did not understand the letter. Several returned the reply slip unsigned. What should you do?

• A. Send the same letter home again with a note asking parents to have an older child or a neighbor read and explain it before they sign the reply slip.
• B. Translate the two-page letter word for word into Waray with an online translation tool and send the translated copy home with the learners this week.
• C. Keep the English letter, since the DepEd Manual of Style prescribes American English for official documents, and explain the project at the next general assembly.
• D. Rewrite the main message as a short note in Waray, check it with a few parents before sending it, and have the advisers explain it at class meetings and home visits.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). It leaves the message unreadable and shifts the work of understanding to children and neighbors.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). The home language is right, but an unchecked word-for-word translation of a long letter keeps the jargon and may add errors.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). An oral explanation helps, but the Manual of Style’s rule on American English is about spelling English text, not a ban on other languages: it names dictionaries for Filipino words, and DO 44 asks for the language stakeholders understand best. The assembly may also be months away.
• D (3 points, Relational). It rewrites the message for the reader, tests it, and adds spoken channels for families who read little.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.4.1 asks for competent speaking and writing with parents and other stakeholders. DO 44, s. 2015 asks that SRC interpretations use “the language most easily understood by the stakeholders” and allows the mother tongue; DO 007, s. 2026 encourages Filipino and the mother tongue in captions. Plain-language guidance adds testing a message with readers first.

Indicator 5.4.1: Demonstrate competent skills in speaking and writing, as well as in utilizing communication platforms, in communicating with teachers, learners, parents and other stakeholders.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, School Improvement Plan Guidebook, Communicating to Stakeholders; DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2026, Section V(B)(5); Federal Plain Language Guidelines (2011); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Frequently asked questions

What is a SIP communication plan?

A short plan that says who needs to hear what about the School Improvement Plan, how, when, from whom, at what cost, and how the school will know it worked. Its activities go into the Annual Implementation Plan.

What are the parts of a communication plan?

A complete plan has nine: situation and purpose, objectives, audiences, key messages, channels, timing, messengers, resources and budget, and feedback and evaluation. No official standard fixes the list. The UK government’s OASIS framework uses five steps that cover the same ground: Objectives, Audience and insights, Strategy and ideas, Implementation, and Scoring and evaluation.

Is there a DepEd template for a communication plan?

No. DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 makes the School Report Card its central communication tool and lists a “communication plan” for process owners as an output of Step 9, without a form. Use your division’s template if it has one.

Can a school head talk to the media?

Yes, with approval. DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2026 says school heads “may be authorized to speak on local school matters, subject to prior approval from the SDS”, the division’s official spokesperson. Invited teachers inform the school head, who evaluates the request and, if it is appropriate, endorses it to the SDS.

Can schools post learners’ photos on social media?

Only with valid consent, in written, electronic or recorded form, under DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2026; Annex B is the suggested form. DepEd Order No. 017, s. 2025 also requires the explicit consent of the learner and their parents or guardian before learners’ identifiable information goes on school social media.

More on school leadership

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

• Stakeholder Analysis for DepEd School Heads: A Guide
• DepEd School Improvement Plan (SIP): Steps, AIP and SRC
• Root Cause Analysis for the DepEd School Improvement Plan
• DepEd Revised SBM: DO 007, s. 2024 and the Self-Assessment
• School Governance Council, PTA and Partners: A Guide
• Change Management in Schools: A Guide for DepEd School Heads
• Organizational Diagnosis Models in Schools: 7S, SWOT, PESTLE
• Child-Friendly School Survey and the CFSS in DepEd
• DepEd Child Protection and Anti-Bullying: School Head Duties
• Super El Niño 2026: A School Head’s Continuity Guide
• PPSSH Domain 5: Building Connections With DepEd Data
• RA 9155 Duties of DepEd School Heads: 12 Areas Explained
• On the app: Is the School Improvement Plan working?, a policy review of the SIP, The roles of a school head, and the PPSSH guide

Sources

• DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, Guidelines on the Enhanced School Improvement Planning (SIP) Process and the School Report Card (SRC), with the School Improvement Plan Guidebook: Step 9 (p. 26), Communicating to Stakeholders (pp. 29–30) and Annex 10.
• DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2026, Media Management Guidelines, with Annexes A to D.
• DepEd Order No. 017, s. 2025, Revised Basic Education Enrollment Policy, Section X, Data Privacy.
• DepEd Order No. 035, s. 2022, Guidelines on Enrollment for School Year 2022–2023 in the Context of Re-introduction of the In-Person Classes, Section VI.
• DepEd Order No. 006, s. 2026, Guidelines on Ensuring a Safe and Motivating Learning Environment, Section XII, Confidentiality.
• DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012, DepEd Child Protection Policy.
• DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024, Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Revised School-Based Management (SBM) System, Section I and Annex A.
• DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022, Implementing Guidelines on the Establishment of School Governance Council.
• DepEd Order No. 030, s. 2019, The Department of Education Manual of Style.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 082, s. 2022, Reiteration of the Strict Compliance to the Use of the Department of Education Manual of Style.
• DepEd Order No. 014, s. 2026, Guidelines on Learning Continuity in Emergencies.
• DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Three-Term School Calendar in Basic Education, Annex B.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 030, s. 2022, Dissemination of the Revised School Safety Assessment Tool for the Progressive Expansion of the Face to Face Classes.
• DepEd Order No. 34, s. 2009, Moving Forward in the Implementation of the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA).
• DepEd Order No. 59, s. 2017, Guidelines on the Weekly Iron Folic Acid Supplementation for Female Adolescent Learners in Public High Schools.
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025, Administration of the National Assessment for School Heads for Fiscal Year 2025.
• Republic Act No. 10173, Data Privacy Act of 2012, Sections 3(b), 3(l), 11 and 13.
• House of Representatives, House Bill No. 2880, Plain Language for Public Service Act, 20th Congress (filed August 4, 2025).
• World Bank (2016), Assessing Basic Education Service Delivery in the Philippines: The Philippines Public Education Expenditure Tracking and Quantitative Service Delivery Study, Report AUS6799, pp. 76 and 79.
• Government Communication Service, OASIS: Planning government communications, Cabinet Office, United Kingdom (page dated March 13, 2020; Open Government Licence v3.0).
• World Health Organization (2017), WHO Strategic Communications Framework for effective communications, pp. 3, 5, 36 and 41.
• Plain Language Action and Information Network (2011), Federal Plain Language Guidelines, Rev. 1, May 2011.
• UNICEF Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia and WHO Regional Office for Europe (2021), Guidance for school administrators to communicate with students, parents/caregivers and teachers, pp. 9, 10 and 12.
• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (2021), Guidance on evidence-based parental engagement approaches, UNICEF Foundational Literacy and Numeracy Hub, p. 3.
• Joyce L. Epstein (2004), Meeting NCLB requirements for family involvement, Middle Ground, 8(1), 14–17.
• National Network of Partnership Schools, Johns Hopkins University, Type 2: Communicating.
• Kammi Schmeer (1999), Guidelines for Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis, Partnerships for Health Reform, Abt Associates (USAID document PNACM410), p. 24.

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Orders No. 44, s. 2015; No. 007, s. 2026; No. 009 and No. 014, s. 2026; No. 017, s. 2025; No. 006, s. 2026; No. 007, s. 2024; No. 026, s. 2022; No. 030, s. 2019 and No. 024, s. 2020; DepEd Memoranda No. 030 and No. 082, s. 2022 and No. 069, s. 2025; RA 10173; World Bank (2016); OASIS; WHO (2017); the Federal Plain Language Guidelines; UNICEF and WHO Europe (2021); J-PAL (2021); Epstein (2004); Schmeer (1999).