Stakeholder Analysis for DepEd School Heads: A Guide

Stakeholder analysis is the work of finding out who has a stake in a school decision, what each person or group wants from it, and how much each can help or block it. For a Department of Education (DepEd) school head, it is part of work the rules already require: listening to “the voice of the learners and other stakeholders” in the School Improvement Plan (SIP), inviting stakeholders into the school-based management (SBM) self-assessment, and assessing partners before signing anything. This guide explains who a public school’s stakeholders are under DepEd policy, a six-step method for a school, how to map stakeholders on a power/interest grid, and the partner analysis in DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2015. Its companion, SIP Communication Plan: Structure, Style and a Sample, turns the analysis into a plan for communicating with each group.

It is written for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH), new school heads and teachers-in-charge. The Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), adopted through DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, place this work mainly in Domain 5, Building Connections, which “underscores the school heads’ competence in engaging stakeholders in initiatives towards the improvement of school communities”. At Career Stage 1, aspiring school heads are expected to “Involve the community, such as parents, alumni, authorities, industries and other stakeholders” (indicator 5.5.1). They are also expected to understand how to use “learner voice to inform policy development and decision-making towards school improvement” (indicator 1.6.1).

Key points

• DepEd defines stakeholders, but sets out no method for analyzing them. No DepEd order or memorandum describes one, so the method below is adapted from open sources.
• In DepEd’s definitions, parents are external stakeholders. Learners and school personnel are internal.
• DepEd’s own partner analysis is in DO 40, s. 2015. The school head, as partnership focal person, conducts internal and external assessments, identifies resource gaps and potential partners, and keeps a database.
• The power/interest grid is useful, but it is neither DepEd’s nor objective. It is often called Mendelow’s matrix, although Mendelow’s 1981 paper plotted power against “dynamism”, not interest.
• Learners are stakeholders, not only beneficiaries. The SIP guidelines say listening to their voice “is crucial in the SIP and should not be skipped”.
• A school cannot drop the stakeholders who are hardest to reach. DepEd’s rules call for inclusive selection and for home visits when stakeholders cannot come to school.
• The analysis holds personal information. Record people by role where you can, under the Data Privacy Act’s principles of “transparency, legitimate purpose and proportionality”.

What is stakeholder analysis in education?

A widely quoted definition of a stakeholder comes from R. Edward Freeman’s 1984 book on strategic management. As an Open University course quotes it, Freeman “defined it as ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives’”. DepEd’s definition is close. DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024, the revised SBM policy, defines a stakeholder as “any person, school, recognized Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), Local Government Unit (LGU), and other organizations that has/have professional or civic interests or concerns for the interest of the schools and their students”.

Stakeholder analysis is the method of studying those people and groups. Kammi Schmeer’s guidelines for the USAID-funded Partnerships for Health Reform project, an open how-to manual, define it as “a process of systematically gathering and analyzing qualitative information to determine whose interests should be taken into account when developing and/or implementing a policy or program”. The Open University course breaks it into three tasks: identify the stakeholders, understand the key ones, and set priorities among them.

It is not a list of donors: DO 40, s. 2015 defines partners as those who “enter into agreement” with DepEd offices or schools, while stakeholders also include learners, parents who give only their time, and people who oppose a plan. Nor is it a list of supporters, a one-time form, or an objective measurement. Schmeer warns that results are “always somewhat subjective since it is based on what stakeholders communicate to analysts”.

In a DepEd school it runs through five tasks. DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, the SIP order, asks the school head to “Invite at least 7 stakeholders” to the School-Community Planning Team (SPT) and to listen to learners and stakeholders on each priority area; the school improvement plan guide explains its cycle. DO 007, s. 2024 asks the school to invite “internal and external stakeholders to participate in the self-assessment”. DO 40, s. 2015 governs partnerships, and the 2026 Brigada Eskwela guidelines call for “data-driven partnerships with the community to address school needs”.

As of October 2026, only three DepEd orders mention stakeholder analysis or stakeholder mapping, and none says how to do it: the PRIME grant guidelines of 2011 and 2012 (DepEd Order No. 81, s. 2011 and DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2012), and an annex of DepEd Order No. 021, s. 2019, which says a “stakeholder mapping and analysis maybe conducted” to find partners for developing learning materials.

Who are the stakeholders of a public school in the Philippines?

Section 7(E)(10) of Republic Act No. 9155, the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, gives the school head responsibility for “Establishing school and community networks and encouraging the active participation of teachers organizations, non-academic personnel of public schools, and parents-teachers-community associations”. The DepEd mission in DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013 adds: “Family, community, and other stakeholders are actively engaged and share responsibility for developing life-long learners”.

DO 007, s. 2024 and DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022 divide stakeholders the same way. In the words of DO 026, internal stakeholders are “directly and immediately involved in or affected by the daily educational operations of the school”: the learners and school personnel. External stakeholders “have strong interest in collaborating with and/or supporting the school”, and include “the parents and guardians, community members, local government units, civil society organizations”, agencies, companies and cooperatives. The guide to the revised SBM sets out the definitions. For analysis, what matters is where each group already has a seat.

Three points follow. Parents are external stakeholders, so the analysis has to reach into homes. One person often holds several roles, such as PTA officer, SPT member and barangay health worker, with different interests in each, so analyze by role. And the division is missing from both definitions but decides much: under DO 40, s. 2015, a draft partnership agreement goes to the schools division superintendent for review with the legal office. The School Governance Council, PTA and Partners guide explains the rules for each body; this guide is about analyzing the people in them.

How to do a stakeholder analysis in a school: six steps

Schmeer’s eight steps were built for national health reform, where analyzing 35 to 40 stakeholders needs “a four-person team working full-time for about two months”. A school needs a lighter version for one SIP project, using the teams DepEd already requires. The six steps below adapt Schmeer and the Open University course.

Step 1: Set the purpose

Schmeer insists that “for a stakeholder analysis to be useful, it must be focused on a specific policy or issue”. In a school, that is one SIP project, one decision that affects many people, or one partnership. “Improve the school” is too broad; “bring 36 Grade 3 non-readers to grade level this school year” is specific enough.

Schmeer suggests a working group of “2 to 4 people” who “represent distinct interests and organizations”. A school already has one: DO 44’s project team, whose members “are drawn from the community, teachers, and learners with at least one member coming from the SPT”.

Step 2: Identify the stakeholders

Start broad, then narrow. The Open University course suggests questions such as “Who has the power to cause the project to succeed or to fail?”, “Who controls or provides the resources and facilities that will be needed?” and “Who are the less obvious stakeholders you have not considered yet?” Use the table of DepEd roles above as a checklist. For each organization, name the person or role you will actually talk to, because “ultimately you can only communicate with people”.

One rule from Schmeer should not be copied. Her manual says “Actors who are not organized or do not have the ability to affect the specific policy should not be included”. That suits a national reform with limited interview time, not a public school, where parents who never attend meetings are often the people a SIP project is meant to help. DO 026, s. 2022 asks that the selection of SGC members be “gender-responsive, non-discriminatory, and inclusive”. Keep unorganized groups on the list, and find a way to hear them.

Step 3: Gather information on each stakeholder

Schmeer records each stakeholder’s knowledge of the policy, position on it, interest, alliances, resources, power and leadership. The table adapts the main ones to a school.

Two of Schmeer’s rules are worth keeping. A stakeholder’s stated opposition “is taken as accurate”, but a claim of support or neutrality is cross-checked with what others say, “because the stakeholder may have an incentive to misrepresent his or her position”. And power is scored, not guessed: the quantity of resources (3 to 1) is averaged with the ability to mobilize them (3 if the stakeholder decides their use, 2 if one of several who decide, 1 if not), giving “3 – high power, 2 – medium power, and 1 – little power”.

To collect the information, the SIP Guidebook’s Annex 6 on listening to learners and stakeholders advises interviews or focus groups first, then surveys “to quantify and verify the responses”. Teams “must avoid biased, leading, or loaded questions” and transcribe answers “verbatim”, because “The use of their own language is important”. When people who matter to a priority area “cannot come to school … home visits are necessary”. The interview and FGD guide helps with the questions.

Step 4: Map the stakeholders (stakeholder mapping)

A stakeholder map shows the team where to spend its effort. The Open University course presents “the power/interest grid”, which it says “is sometimes referred to as Mendelow’s matrix”:

The paper behind the name is A. L. Mendelow’s 1981 conference paper on environmental scanning, where “a grid may be constructed using Power and Dynamism as the two axes”. The power/interest version is a later adaptation.

The course adds cautions. Interest “can change over time”. Power “is a much more slippery concept”, because weak groups “can wield a surprising amount of power if they unite in common cause”. And the grid “is not an objective instrument by itself”.

A public school needs one more adjustment. Every parent is owed basic information about the school’s plans and results, so read “monitor (minimum effort)” as “inform and check periodically”, never as “ignore”.

Schmeer ranks stakeholders with both leadership and high power first, because “those with leadership and power will be most able to affect policy implementation”. A barangay captain who opposes a project at an assembly belongs in that group.

Step 5: Decide how to engage each stakeholder

Schmeer’s guidelines set five goals for the strategies that follow: maintain supporters’ support, “Increase power and leadership of the supporters”, “Convert the opponents to supporters”, “Weaken the power and leadership of the opponents”, and convert neutral stakeholders “into active supporters”. The fourth does not fit a public office (see the ethics section); in a school, the substitute is to bring an opponent’s concern into the open, through the SPT or the SGC, and change the plan where the concern is valid.

For parents and the community, Joyce Epstein’s framework of six types of involvement offers a menu of roles: “parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with the community” (Epstein, 2004). For a reading project, that could mean a session on home reading routines, a monthly note on each child’s level, parent reading buddies, take-home books, a parent on the project team, and a barangay hall on loan.

Step 6: Record, share and update

Keep the results in a stakeholder register. One sample row:

When reporting results, Schmeer identifies stakeholders “by organization rather than by name in order to preserve their anonymity”; in a school, do the same in the register itself. Update the register when each year’s Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) is reviewed, before the SBM self-assessment, and before Brigada Eskwela.

A worked example: stakeholder analysis for a Grade 3 reading project

The school, its numbers and its people are invented to show the method.

An elementary school of about 420 learners serves a farming and fishing barangay. Its SIP names Grade 3 reading as a priority improvement area: 36 of 70 Grade 3 learners read below grade level. The project team (two Grade 3 teachers, the reading coordinator, a parent from the SPT and a Grade 6 pupil leader) plans after-class reading buddies, take-home books and a monthly reading check.

Over two weeks the team interviews teachers, PTA officers and the barangay’s education committee chair, holds a focus group with Grade 3 learners, and visits 12 homes. Two first impressions change. The barangay captain said he supported the program, but two council members and the PTA president described him as neutral, since the council had not released the hall for afternoon use, so the team records him as a moderate supporter (MS). And home visits showed that parents who skip assemblies mostly wanted books at home but sold in the market in the mornings or fished at night.

The team then decides on actions:

• Manage closely. The teachers’ concern is hours, so the sessions are scheduled within the workload rules of DepEd Order No. 005, s. 2024, and volunteers run the after-class part. The guide to DepEd teacher workload policies sets out those rules. The school head meets the barangay captain before fixing any schedule.
• Keep satisfied. The district supervisor gets a one-page update each term. The program goes into the report on the state of education that school heads give at the start of every school year, which the Local School Board considers when it prepares the Special Education Fund budget.
• Keep informed. Learners help choose the books. Parents who cannot attend meetings get a take-home book pack with a short note in the home language and a number to text.

By mid-year the barangay has released the hall on two afternoons a week, and the captain moves to S. The grid alone would have missed both corrections. These actions are the first draft of the project’s communication plan, which SIP Communication Plan: Structure, Style and a Sample develops.

DepEd’s own partner analysis: DO 40, s. 2015

DO 40, s. 2015, the Guidelines on K to 12 Partnerships, dated August 28, 2015, is the only DepEd issuance that lays out a step-by-step analysis of potential partners. It was written for the senior high school rollout, but paragraph 5 makes it “applicable to all partnership agreements” between DepEd offices or schools and their partners. One of its principles: “Partnerships will be entered into only after thorough study and preparation to ensure that these will be beneficial to the students and learners, teachers, and schools”.

The order is still in force; no later order has replaced it. DO 021, s. 2019 says “Guidelines on Partnerships are discussed in DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2015”, and the 2026 Brigada Eskwela guidelines, DepEd Memorandum No. 027, s. 2026, list it among their references.

The school head as partnership focal person

“The PFP for the school is the School Head”, who “may designate a teacher to assist”. The focal person’s first responsibility is the “Situational Analysis on K to 12 partnership resources”, with four activities:

1. “Conducts internal and external assessments”
2. “Identifies resource gaps”
3. “Identifies potential partners (external)”
4. “Prepares a data base of resources and potential partners”

The steps in Section I

• Research. The internal assessment gathers “information about the school, students and parents, program offerings, and school resources”; the external assessment uses “information available from the various sources of data without actual engagement or discussion with the target potential partner”.
• Identification. “Identifying, qualifying, and prioritizing potential partners”, using criteria such as fit with the school’s programs, legal requirements, proximity and a corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy.
• Engagement. The meeting guide in Section I.3 asks, among other things, “What are the expectations of the potential partner?” and “Who are the decision makers?”, which find the partner’s interest and where its power lies.
• Partnership development. The agreement itself, covered in the School Governance Council, PTA and Partners guide.

The annexes: DepEd’s own analysis tools

One detail matters. The Qualification Tool’s first item asks: “Is the potential partner associated with cigarette and/or liquor manufacturing/distribution, mining, escort services and other prohibited activities?” A “yes” earns zero points, so the conflict-of-interest screen is part of the analysis.

Other schools should adapt the tools: use the SIP’s School-Community Data Template (Annex 1A of the SIP Guidebook) as the internal assessment, and replace the work immersion items with a question on whether the offer fits a SIP project. DO 40 also has a blind spot: it looks only at those who can give resources, not at learners, parents and teachers as stakeholders whose views must be gathered. Use it for partners and the six steps for everyone else.

The ALS-EST handbook’s version

DepEd’s ALS-EST Handbook for Implementers, launched in June 2019 for the Alternative Learning System–Education and Skills Training program, condenses the process into four steps in Box 10-1 of its Chapter 10, “Partnerships”: internal and external assessments; identifying, qualifying and prioritizing partners; engaging them; and preparing a MOA, of which “The School Head is the official signatory”. Its Table 10-2 sorts what partners can give into human, teaching-learning, material and organizational resources, a useful prompt for a register’s power column.

Its Table 10-3 lists issuances a MOA must respect; check each against current rules. Like DO 40, it describes an order that “discourages school officials from partnering with companies manufacturing milk and infant formula products”. DM 027, s. 2026 now tells “All DepEd Offices and schools” to “strictly observe the prohibition on partnering with, accepting donations or sponsorships from industries that present conflicts of interest, such as, but not limited to, the tobacco, breast milk substitutes, and alcoholic beverage industries”, restating standing orders it lists, such as DepEd Order No. 48, s. 2016 on tobacco and DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2017, which applies the Milk Code’s ban on gifts from infant formula makers. The ALS and inclusive education guide covers the ALS programs.

Learners as stakeholders: learner voice in the analysis

DO 44, s. 2015 describes the SIP as “an evidence-based, systematic approach with the point of view of the learner as the starting point”. Its Activity 3.3 tells project teams to talk “to the faces behind the numbers” and states: “listening to the voice of the learners and stakeholders is crucial in the SIP and should not be skipped”.

Learners also hold formal seats and roles:

• a student representative on the SPT (DO 44, s. 2015);
• a learner government representative among the four ex-officio members of the SGC (DO 026, s. 2022);
• SBM indicator 21, “a functional Supreme Student Government/Supreme Pupil Government” (DO 007, s. 2024). Newer orders, such as DO 005, s. 2024 and the school calendar order, DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, call these bodies the Supreme Elementary Learner Government (SELG) and the Supreme Secondary Learner Government (SSLG);
• the School Code of Conduct, which each school formulates from DepEd’s Standardized Code of Conduct. DepEd Order No. 006, s. 2026 says the Standardized Code must “be developed through stakeholder consultation, including learners”, so consult learners when adapting it.

The ALS-EST handbook calls learners “not mere beneficiaries, but … genuine partners in their learning and development”.

In practice, analyze learners as several groups, since non-readers, strong readers and pupil leaders have different interests. Record their answers in their own words, and record learners by group, never by name. If a learner discloses abuse or bullying during a focus group, stop the consultation and follow the procedures in DepEd Child Protection and Anti-Bullying: School Head Duties. The Child-Friendly School Survey guide covers another source of learner views.

Analyzing and communicating with stakeholders

Schmeer says policy makers “should use the information generated by the stakeholder analysis to develop and implement strategic communication, advocacy, and negotiation plans”. The knowledge score is the most direct link: if opponents consistently know little about a policy, “communicating or advocating the objectives and basic tenets of the policy could reduce the opposition”. The table turns each grid cell into a communication need.

DepEd already provides one channel for everyone. DO 44, s. 2015 calls the School Report Card (SRC) “a tool for advocating and communicating the school situation, context, and performance to internal and external stakeholders”, presented “at the minimum” at the mid-year (October) and year-end (March) general assemblies. Those months follow DO 44’s 2015 calendar. Under the three-term calendar of DO 009, s. 2026, School Year 2026–2027 runs from June 8, 2026 to April 8, 2027, with a PTA meeting near the end of each term, so schedule the two SRC presentations at the school year’s actual midpoint and end. The change management guide covers communicating change to teachers and parents, and SIP Communication Plan: Structure, Style and a Sample covers the plan itself.

Ethics and limits of stakeholder analysis in a public school

Personal information

A register that names a parent and rates that parent’s “position” and “power” holds personal information. Republic Act No. 10173, the Data Privacy Act of 2012, covers information “from which the identity of an individual is apparent or can be reasonably and directly ascertained”. Section 11 requires “the principles of transparency, legitimate purpose and proportionality”, and information that is “Adequate and not excessive” and kept “only for as long as necessary”. So record roles rather than names, tell people why you are asking, keep the file within the project team, and delete individual notes once decisions are made. For learners, DO 006, s. 2026 requires that information on “the identity and personal circumstances of all parties involved in an incident” be “treated with the utmost confidentiality”.

Transparency, not “behind the scenes”

Some of Schmeer’s advice does not fit a public school: “possibly ‘behind the scenes’” actions, strategies that “may need to remain confidential”, and the goal to “Weaken the power and leadership of the opponents”. Section 5(c) of RA 9155 says “The principles of accountability and transparency shall be operationalized in the performance of functions and responsibilities at all levels”. Keep the analysis private where it holds personal information, but keep decisions, and the reasons for them, open.

Conflict-of-interest partners

The most powerful potential partner may be one the school cannot accept under the prohibitions that DM 027, s. 2026 restates, whatever its CSR budget. The School Governance Council, PTA and Partners guide lists the partners a school may not accept, and the ethics and internal control guide covers personal conflicts of interest under RA 6713.

Parents who cannot attend

Attendance is a poor measure of interest. A UNICEF and WHO Europe guidance note for school administrators asks that listening channels “include even the hardest-to-reach learners and their families”, and notes that “A dedicated hotline would help in including the parents with low literacy levels”. J-PAL’s guidance for UNICEF, which draws on randomized evaluations, reports that “psychological, informational, and time constraints often prevent greater parental engagement”, and that “programs providing information directly to parents and students have shown more consistent impacts on parental engagement and student learning” than school committee programs. Find out why a group does not come before judging its interest.

How SBM rates a school’s work with stakeholders

The SBM Self-Assessment Checklist in Annex A of DO 007, s. 2024 has seven indicators that a stakeholder analysis feeds. Indicators 20 to 22 are in the Leadership dimension, and 24 to 26 and 28 in Governance and Accountability.

DO 007 does not name an instrument for indicator 28, though DO 026, s. 2022 tells the SGC to “communicate to the SPT and project teams the learners’ and stakeholders’ feedback and satisfaction” on the SIP and AIP. A register keeps the rating from resting only on parents who come to meetings. The revised SBM guide explains the checklist.

What the school head does: stakeholder analysis across the school year

1. At the start of a SIP cycle, map the stakeholders before forming the SPT. Check that the seats cover the groups in the roles table, with gender balance and, in multicultural settings, IP and Muslim representation (DO 44, s. 2015, Activity 1.2).
2. In the Assess phase, have project teams listen to learners, parents and others, with home visits where needed (Activity 3.3 and Annex 6).
3. For each SIP project, run the six steps with the project team and keep the register with the project’s documents.
4. Two to three months before Brigada Eskwela, update the partner analysis. The 2026 guidelines (DM 027, s. 2026) began their pre-implementation stage then, with a School Preparedness Checklist of needs. Check each year’s Brigada memorandum; DO 009, s. 2026 sets the 2027 Brigada Eskwela for June 7–11, 2027. Match needs to partners with DO 40’s assessments and screen out prohibited industries.
5. When a partner offers support, qualify it before you accept, using DO 40’s tools and meeting questions, then follow the agreement process in the School Governance Council, PTA and Partners guide.
6. Before the mid-year and year-end assemblies where the SRC is presented, plan the communication, using the grid to decide who needs more than the SRC.
7. At the mid-year and year-end reviews, update the register.
8. Near the end of the school year, use the register in the SBM self-assessment, which the school head leads as School SBM Coordinator under DO 007, s. 2024.

Stakeholder analysis and the PPSSH: strands and Career Stage 1 indicators

The table gives the Career Stage 1 indicators this topic serves, in the words of DO 024, s. 2020.

The PPSSH guide lists every indicator at all four career stages. PPSSH Domain 5: Building Connections With DepEd Data and PPSSH Domain 1: Leading Strategically With DepEd Data read the two domains with school 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. On this topic, expect items in which a school head must deal with a powerful stakeholder, screen a partner, or decide whose views count. 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 5.1.1, Management of diverse relationships. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

Your elementary school’s SIP includes an after-class reading program for Grade 3 learners at the barangay hall, which is closer to most learners’ homes than the school. At a barangay assembly, the barangay captain says he opposes the program because the hall is booked most afternoons and the school never asked the council. He controls the hall, and many parents follow his lead. What is the most appropriate response?

• A. Move the sessions to the school and leave the barangay out of the program, since the SIP is the school’s plan and the hall is not essential.
• B. Meet the barangay captain soon, hear his concerns, share the reading data, agree with the council on a schedule or venue, and report back through the SPT’s barangay representative.
• C. Write to the schools division superintendent and ask the division to direct the barangay captain to make the hall available for the program.
• D. Send the barangay council a formal letter explaining the program and its data, and ask for a written decision on the hall at its next session.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). Avoiding the conflict keeps the program running, but it drops a powerful, interested stakeholder and the venue closest to the learners.
• B (3 points, Relational). This manages the captain closely: it hears his interest, shares evidence, seeks agreement and uses the planning team’s link to the barangay.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). This treats a local government as if it were under the division; nothing in RA 9155 gives the division authority over a barangay’s hall.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). The letter and the data are right, but one-way communication with a powerful opponent skips the dialogue that could resolve his concern.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.1.1 asks for skill in dealing with authorities, parents and other stakeholders. The captain belongs in the “manage closely” cell, and Schmeer’s guidelines take stated opposition as accurate and look to the stakeholder’s interests for a way to convert him. DO 44, s. 2015 already gives the barangay a seat on the SPT. The option that writes a formal letter gets the content right and misses the two-way engagement.

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. 44, s. 2015, SIP Guidebook, Activity 1.2; Schmeer (1999), pp. 14, 17 and 23; The Open University (2016), p. 29; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 2

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

A teacher assisting you as partnership focal person has completed the External Assessment Template under DO 40, s. 2015 for the school’s reading program. At the top of her list is the local office of a company whose main products are infant formula. It has the largest corporate social responsibility budget in town and has offered 200 storybooks, each with a small brand sticker on the cover. What should you do with this entry?

• A. Rank the company first, because the template asks for each partner’s CSR projects and its large budget means the most resources for learners.
• B. Keep the company on the list, but accept the storybooks only if it agrees to remove the brand stickers before it delivers them.
• C. Hold the whole list and ask the division office whether the company may be a partner before contacting any other potential partner.
• D. Drop the company from the list, record the reason in the school’s database of potential partners, and move on to partners the school may accept.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). This makes the CSR budget the deciding factor and ignores the prohibition on the breast milk substitutes industry.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Removing the stickers deals with endorsement, but the source of the donation is itself prohibited.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Caution is reasonable, but the rule is already clear, and holding the list delays every allowed partner.
• D (3 points, Relational). This applies the prohibition, keeps the partner database accurate, and continues the analysis the order requires.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.3.1 asks for knowledge of how to keep school operations consistent with issuances. DM 027, s. 2026 tells all schools to “strictly observe the prohibition on partnering with, accepting donations or sponsorships from” industries such as “breast milk substitutes”. DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2017 requires schools to observe the Milk Code’s prohibition on “gifts of any sort from companies that manufacture or market infant formula and other milk substitutes”. DO 40, s. 2015 only “discouraged” such partners, so the rule now comes from these later issuances. DO 40’s focal person still keeps “a data base of resources and potential partners”. The option that asks the division first gets the caution right and misses that the rule already answers the question.

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 Memorandum No. 027, s. 2026, Enclosure 1, Section A.3; DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2017, Enclosure, Part C; DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2015, Section H; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 3

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

In a stakeholder analysis for a Grade 3 reading program, the project team places the parents who never attend school assemblies in the “monitor (minimum effort)” cell of a power/interest grid. Most of these parents sell in the town market in the mornings or fish at night. Which statement best describes how the team should treat these parents?

• A. Attendance is weak evidence of interest, so the team should learn these parents’ interest through home visits or short calls and reach them through channels they can use.
• B. They belong in the “monitor” cell, since the grid records what stakeholders show, and parents who do not attend have shown little interest in the program.
• C. They should be moved to the “keep informed” cell and sent the School Report Card and assembly notices, so that they learn what the school decided.
• D. They should be left out of the analysis, since it covers only stakeholders who are organized enough to affect how the program is carried out.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (3 points, Relational). This questions the evidence behind the placement, uses the listening methods DepEd prescribes, and links the finding to how the parents will be engaged.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). The parents stay on the map, but the placement rests on an assumption, and the grid “is not an objective instrument by itself”.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). Moving them is right, but notices inform without finding out what the parents need or how they can take part.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). This copies a health-reform rule that does not fit a public school and excludes the families the program serves.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.5.1 asks the aspiring school head to involve parents in school programs. DO 44, s. 2015 says that when stakeholders important to a priority area “cannot come to school … home visits are necessary”. J-PAL’s guidance reports that time constraints limit parents’ engagement and that information sent directly to parents has shown more consistent effects. The option that moves the parents to “keep informed” gets the placement right and still treats communication as one-way.

Indicator 5.5.1: Involve the community, such as parents, alumni, authorities, industries and other stakeholders, in school programs, projects and activities to gain support for learner development, as well as school and community improvement.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, SIP Guidebook, Activity 3.3; The Open University (2016), pp. 29 and 35; J-PAL (2021), p. 3; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Frequently asked questions

What is stakeholder analysis in education?

A systematic way of finding out who has a stake in a school decision or project, what each person or group wants and knows, whether each supports or opposes it, and how much power each has to help or block it. The results guide how the school involves and communicates with each group.

Who are the stakeholders of a public school?

DepEd Orders No. 007, s. 2024 and No. 026, s. 2022 divide them into internal stakeholders (learners and school personnel) and external stakeholders, such as parents and guardians, community members, local governments, civil society organizations, agencies, companies and cooperatives.

What is a stakeholder map?

A chart that places each stakeholder by power and interest, most often a power/interest grid with four cells: manage closely, keep satisfied, keep informed, and monitor. It is often called Mendelow’s matrix, although Mendelow’s 1981 original used power and “dynamism”. It reflects the judgment of whoever fills it in.

What tools does DepEd provide for analyzing partners?

DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2015 provides an Internal Assessment Tool, an External Assessment Template, a Qualification Tool and a template for judging a partner’s readiness, capability and willingness. DepEd has no template for stakeholder analysis in general.

How often should a school update its stakeholder analysis?

At least once a year, when the Annual Implementation Plan is reviewed, and whenever a project or partnership changes. DO 44, s. 2015 asks project teams to listen to learners and stakeholders again in years 2 and 3 of the SIP, because their needs and views may have changed.

More on school leadership

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

• SIP Communication Plan: Structure, Style and a Sample
• School Governance Council, PTA and Partners: A Guide
• DepEd School Improvement Plan (SIP): Steps, AIP and SRC
• DepEd Revised SBM: DO 007, s. 2024 and the Self-Assessment
• Root Cause Analysis for the DepEd School Improvement Plan
• Organizational Diagnosis Models in Schools: 7S, SWOT, PESTLE
• Change Management in Schools: A Guide for DepEd School Heads
• RA 9155 Duties of DepEd School Heads: 12 Areas Explained
• RA 9155 at 25: Why Shared Governance Has Not Happened
• DepEd Child Protection and Anti-Bullying: School Head Duties
• PPSSH Domain 5: Building Connections With DepEd Data
• Leadership Styles of School Heads: What the Evidence Says
• On the app: The roles of a school head, the six roles in one guide; Is the School Improvement Plan working?, a policy review of the SIP; and the PPSSH guide

Sources

• Republic Act No. 9155, Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, Sections 5(c) and 7(E)(10) (Official Gazette).
• Republic Act No. 10173, Data Privacy Act of 2012, Sections 3(g) and 11 (Official Gazette).
• Republic Act No. 8525, Adopt-a-School Act of 1998, Section 3.
• DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2015, Guidelines on K to 12 Partnerships, with Annexes A to F.
• DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, Enhanced School Improvement Planning Process and the School Report Card, with the SIP Guidebook.
• DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024, Revised School-Based Management System, with Annex A.
• DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022, School Governance Council guidelines.
• DepEd Order No. 013, s. 2022, Omnibus PTA Guidelines.
• DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013, DepEd Vision, Mission and Core Values.
• DepEd Order No. 021, s. 2019, Policy Guidelines on the K to 12 Basic Education Program, paragraph 46 and Annex 4.
• DepEd Order No. 81, s. 2011 and DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2012, Guidelines and Revised Guidelines on the Grant of the PRIME Program.
• DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2017, Healthy Food and Beverage Choices in Schools and in DepEd Offices, Enclosure, Part C.
• DepEd Order No. 48, s. 2016, Comprehensive Tobacco Control.
• DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, Three-Term School Calendar and the SY 2026–2027 calendar.
• DepEd Order No. 005, s. 2024, Rationalization of Teachers’ Workload.
• DepEd Order No. 006, s. 2026, Ensuring a Safe and Motivating Learning Environment.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 027, s. 2026, 2026 Brigada Eskwela Implementing Guidelines.
• Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2025, DepEd, DBM, DILG and DOF, Omnibus Guidelines on the Use of the Special Education Fund, Sections 6.3 and 6.4.2.
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020 (PPSSH) and DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025 (NASH 2025).
• Department of Education, ALS-EST Handbook for Implementers (2019), Chapter 10, “Partnerships”, pp. 105–115; see DepEd’s launch notice of June 4, 2019 (archived).
• Schmeer, K. (1999). Guidelines for conducting a stakeholder analysis. Partnerships for Health Reform, Abt Associates. (Archived copy.)
• The Open University. (2016). Successful IT systems [free OpenLearn course], pp. 23–35 of the printable version. Freeman’s 1984 definition is quoted from this course.
• Mendelow, A. L. (1981). Environmental scanning: The impact of the stakeholder concept. ICIS 1981 Proceedings, pp. 407–417.
• Epstein, J. L. (2004). Meeting NCLB requirements for family involvement. Middle Ground, 8(1), 14–17 (six types of involvement, pp. 14 and 16).
• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. (2021). Guidance on evidence-based parental engagement approaches. UNICEF Foundational Literacy and Numeracy Hub.
• 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.

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Orders No. 40 and No. 44, s. 2015; DepEd Orders No. 007, s. 2024, No. 026 and No. 013, s. 2022, No. 36, s. 2013, No. 021, s. 2019, No. 005, s. 2024, No. 006 and No. 009, s. 2026, No. 13, s. 2017, No. 48, s. 2016, No. 81, s. 2011 and No. 42, s. 2012; DepEd Memorandum No. 027, s. 2026; Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2025; Republic Acts No. 9155, No. 10173 and No. 8525; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020 and the PPSSH; DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025; the ALS-EST Handbook for Implementers; Schmeer (1999); The Open University (2016); Mendelow (1981); Epstein (2004); J-PAL (2021); UNICEF and WHO Europe (2021).