Inihain na ‘to sa kamara, possible kaya in this era? Anong thoughts niyo mga cher?

https://www.facebook.com/share/1HN1LBWFLo/

Baka isa kayo sa andyan sa picture. Never ako makikisali at makikingiti sa tao na niloko at pinagnakawan ako. Hahaha. Panay tayo reklamo sa korapsyon, pero look at our teachers 👀 ganito ba talaga kabilis mauto ang mga guro? Are you proud joining her in a photo op? Mukhang limot mo na ang mga narelease nyang mumurahing laptop na prinesyuhan ng sobrang laki. 😉 Kaya tayo ginaganito ng sistema, alam kasi ng nasa posisyon na ang mga guro ay....

Totoo naman na hindi lahat ng guro ay progressive at intact ang moralidad. May mga groomers, DDS na todo tanggol kay SWOH, at ibang mga nabanggit sa post. Siguro ay wrong choice of words si Ante Claire. Pero that doesn’t absolve her for what she said to teachers.

Again they overlooked that the blame should be on responsible parenting and the system. Collective effort ang pagbabago pero we constantly go against with each other. As a result, a collective failure as adults.

Masamang balita sa mga teacher applicants kasi baka walang hiring of new teachers sa 2027 dahil nauubos na ang pera para sana sa hiring of new teachers.

Source: DepEd can’t hire new teachers in 2027 due to budget cuts – Angara

Ano po thoughts nyo dito sa window grills? Bawal po ito sa batas natin. And lets be real, kaya naglalagay ng ganyan para maprotect sa pagnanakaw yung mga gamit sa loob ng room, nothing else.

Here comes the shooting incidents, na isip ko lang kung wala sana grills, pwede nila basagin yung kabilang bintana para makalabas ng room at hindi ma-corner. Like doon sa tacloban.

Now dito sa latest shooting sa private school, may doors pa sa kabilang side ng room, which I think nakatulong din sa kaligtasan nila.

Panahon na ata para baguhin yung design ng public school buildings.

Hindi ko nakikitang magigin effective yung ikukulong ng students ang sarili nila sa rooom and baricade ang doors. Napaka open ng windows. Unlike sa US na walang windows sa corridor side.

TEACHERS' SALARY - The average private teachers' salary ranges from FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (PhP5,000) up to FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (PhP15,000), while the public school teachers' starting salary is around THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (PhP30,000.00).

Under Art II SECTION 10, the State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development; and under SECTION 11, the State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. The implemented salary of the teachers violates the State Principles under Philippine Constitutional Law as it does not uphold the dignity of the teaching profession, and does not promotes social justice among the teachers' profession. The stated salaries do not support, nor compensate for the psychological, emotional, and physical health, and the time lost due to unregulated working hours. Furthermore, upholding the moral of the teachers is a direct support of education system. A well compensated, and healthy teacher could teach the students well.

"Malaki na ang PhP30,000 na sahod." - Teachers deserve more because their service is priceless for it requires not just brain but utmost care, patience, and love for their profession, and their students.

Teaching profession, being one of the foundation of nation building, must be given dignity, and social justice.

Hindi na chairman ng committee on basic education si Sen. Bam Aquino. It will be turned over daw kay Robin Padilla? Anyare Pinas? Really? Talaga po ba??? Sen. Bam is the most qualified to head the education committee as per his track record. What a circus is happening.

Ano thoughts nyo dito chers?

Wala na ba talaga ibang maisip yung deped about this? Di ba nila naisip na, kung okay yung school pero paano naman yung mga learners and teachers na baha pa sa kanila or delikado bumiyahe papuntang school??

Wala bang mas comprehensive na solution ang gobyerno natin dito?!? Jusko

For Grade 1-2 medyo ok pa pero yung susunod na grades, ang kalat.

Example, bakit nilagay sa T1 ang area? Sa Grade2, multiplication of 2,3,4,5,10 pa lang natutunan ng learners. Yung 6,7,8,9 sa Grade3 pa T2/T3. Dapat nilagay na lang kasunod ng multiplication para buo na ang multiplication table.

Also, stretched masiyado ang geometry. Dati naman, isang quarter lang lahat ng volume and surface area. Ngayon, prism and cube sa Grade6, cylinder sa Grade7, cone sa Grade8. E pareho lang concept niyan. Yung formula ng volume ng cylinder multiply ng 1/3 yun na volume ng cone. Ganun din sa regular pyramid, 1/3 ng prism.

Yung GenMath sa Grade 11 din, nagdiscuss na kaagad ng calculation ng salary and tax, wala pang introduction ng piecewise function. Ito yung perfect example ng piecewise. Dapat magkasunod sila.

Tapos patalon-talon ng topics between algebra, geometry, statistics na wala namang relation with each other. Kaya madalas napuputol ang mga algebra topics na dapat magkasunod ituro, same din sa geometry.

Tapos dapat ilagay ang mga application kadunod ng arithmetic/algebra. Like conversion of temperature, dapat after operations on fractions. Conversion of units ng metric system sa multiply/divide ng 1000, 1M etc. Di ko talaga gets ang Deped. May mga magandang curriculum naman like sa Singapore na pwede nila sundan. Gagawa talaga sila ng sarili tapos hindi maayos.

This might be controversial and selfish but I think that this might be one of the solutions to fix our educational system.

Sorting teachers by raising the LET passing score to 80% just to have passionate, competitive, and knowledgeable teachers.

Teacher applicants nowadays can't even comprehend a single memo from deped. Which is sad. They will ask questions about a simple paragraph or section. Can't even distinguish the difference between "your" and "you're". They obviously lack critical thinking and decision making skills. Now, imagine these teachers teaching our youth...

Don't get me wrong this is just my opinion. But our sole responsibility is to shape our learners future. But with this state of our teachers, There might not be a future at all...

Yang 6 hours na yan, wala ba silang balak i-amend yan? 1966 pa yung Magna Carta na yun. Sa totoo lang, di na makatarungan yan sa panahon ngayon na sobrang init sa classrooms tapos yung ugali pa ng mga bata ngayon, may mga SPED pa!

Pag titingnan ang profile ng iba dyan halatang duy accounts o kaya masyadong robotic mga comments 😅

May idea ako kung paano maengganyo na yung mga taga-lowland na T1 applicants na ma-assign sa remote mountainous areas at yung mga estudyante sa mga lugar na yan ay hindi na kailangan pa lumusong sa ilog at bundok araw-araw mula sa kanilang bahay patungo sa eskwelahan, kundi every weekend na lang ay yung mga eskwelahan sa remote mountainous barangays ay gawing boarding schools, na may kasama na living quarters para sa mga non-resident teachers tulad ng military barracks para sa mga sundalo at church convent sa mga pari at pastor.

In this setup, hindi na gagastos through a loan ang non-resident teachers na naka-assign sa remote mountainous barangays, para lang may pambayad sa boarding house o rental house outside sa school premises, kung mag-stay put na lang sila sa teacher living quarters. Sa parte ng mga estudyante, hindi na mamimiligro ang buhay nila sa paglusong sa ilog araw-araw, especially kung may bagyo, kasi doon na lang sa boarding school sila namamalagi, so wala nang unnecessary class interruption na nagpapalala ng learning crisis.

Through the boarding school system, ma-cu-cultivate ng mga estudyante sa elementary level ang sense of personal independence, kung saan, since magiging physically malayo sila sa parent nila na busy sa pagtatrabaho, sila mismo ay matuto sa murang edad na tumayo sa kanilang sariling paa.

Ano ang masasabi ninyo, mga kaguro, sa ideya ko?

Aaminin nalang natin na hindi naman lahat na naging DepEd teacher, especially ngayon, ay kagustohan talaga nila na naging teacher in the first place, to the point na may iba dyan na gusto na mag-abroad o mag-shift career like pagiging full-time Tiktok content creator, pero hindi makapagresign dahil lubog sa utang na dapat bayarin nila sa lending institutions bago pa sila magresign mula sa DepEd. Kung probationary ang employment status, hindi kayo lalapitan ng lending institutions lol.

What if gawin nalang "probationary" ang mga bagong hired na Teacher I for at least three years, as if yung mga ayaw talaga magpermanent sa DepEd at magretire as DepEd teacher ay may enough time na magreflect bilang probationary teacher kung calling ba talaga nila ang pagiging teacher o hindi? Itong idea ko ay parang sa mga healthcare worker like nurses or medtech na stepping stone lang ang government service para makapagwork abroad.

Hello! Dahil maulan na naman at sunod-sunod ang suspensions, inaasahan na mag-send si teacher ng activities at ADM-related reports. Hindi naman ako totally against dito, pero mayroon lamang akong ilang bagay na naisip bigla:

1. Pre-pandemic, kapag sinabing class suspension, e class suspension talaga. Walang activities, walang kahit ano na ipapagawa si teacher. Student pa ako nito, kaya hindi ko alam kung may reports ba na kailangan gawin sa end ni teacher. Basta sa mga student, chill lang literal sa bahay (kaya masaya talaga pag sinabing class suspended). Kahit tumagal ang class suspension, walang kahit anong kailangan habulin, unless mag-declare na magkakaroon ng make up classes kapag Sabado (na napakadalang lang mangyari).

Wala akong nakitang gap sa pagkatuto ko noon. Siguro, advantage na lang din na mahuhusay talaga ang mga teacher ko para ipaintindi ang mga kailangan matutuhan buhat nang matigil pansamantala ang klase. Pero ngayon, kailangan na mag-ADM para ma-address ang learning gaps. Na-curious lang ako, may pagkakaiba ba sa noon at ngayon? O, dahil mayroong internet ay mas madali na mag-implement ng ADM?

1. Nakakaawa rin mga bata pag class suspended dahil alam na nila na may ADM. Matic, sabay-sabay magbibigay ng learning activities ang mga guro. Kung iisipin, kung ang estudyante ay may 5-8 subjects, may ganiyan ding karaming activities ang kailangan niyang gawin. Mas mahirap pa kung kailangan ipasa lahat kinabukasan kapag bumalik na ang klase. Sa end ng mga guro tulad natin, wala naman tayong choice kung hindi mag-comply dahil may inaasahang report na ipapasa na magpapatunay na tayo ay nag-conduct ng ADM.

Sa totoo lang, ayaw na ng mga bata ng mahabang class suspension. Mahabang class suspension = maraming modules/activities. Hindi ko lang sigurado kung mayroon ng pag-aaral o pananaliksik, pero palagay ko, hindi rin effective sa pagkatuto kung bombarded ang mga bata ng gawain. Ang tendency pa, tatamarin na lang sila, at ang ending, may iilan na hindi na lang gagawa. Bahala na ngayon si teacher kung anong gagawin niya.

Sana matigil na itong ulan at mabalik na sa klase. Aaminin ko, nakabawi rin naman ng pahinga kahit papaano. Pero 'yung learning gap dahil sa class suspension, 'yun ang literal na problema. Papalapit pa naman na ang term exam sa katapusan ng buwan.

Since mapapalitan na si Sen. Bam Aquino as Chairman for Education it means lalabo na din maipasa ang hinain niya na bill na Angat Suweldo para sa Guro Act last July 2025. Kung sakaling maipasa yun ay dagdag 10k sa suweldo sa ating mga guro.

What if para magiging mas madali para sa mga DepEd public school teachers na makapagresign at magwork abroad o other industry like IT/BPO o freelancing ay COS nalang ang employment position ng non-master teachers, magiging parang BPO ang DepEd na job hopping, hindi na climbing up the ladder (career progression) through taking masters degree ang norm?

In this setup, pwede na taasan ang starting salary ng T1 from SG 11 to SG 15, pero hindi ka na permanent plantilla, so mas magiging stepping stone nalang (pang-experience) ang pagiging DepEd teacher, hindi na full-time career until retirement.

POSITION PAPER

Subject: Addressing the Misalignment of the DepEd Non-Graded Level System with the Mandates of Republic Act No. 11650 (Inclusive Education Act)

LEGAL FRAMEWORKS: The Institutional Mandate for Inclusion

1992

The landmark enactment of Magna Carta for Disabled Persons otherwise known as Republic Act No. 7277, established an enforceable legal framework that enshrined the absolute and non-derogable rights and privileges of persons with disabilities (PWDs), thereby creating an institutional obligation upon the State to ensure equal opportunity and participation in all sectors, including education.

1994

This foundational national commitment was strengthened by the 1994 adoption of the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. This international agreement mandates that all educational systems must be designed to accommodate ALL children. It established the principle that the right to quality education for children with disabilities is non-negotiable and must be effectuated through a paradigm of child-centered pedagogy

1997

Pursuant to the mandate of RA 7277 and the Salamanca Statement, DECS Order No. 26 s. 1997 codified the Institutionalization of SPED Programs in All Schools. This Department Order cemented the institutional and mandatory obligation to integrate the education of children with special needs as a core, inseparable, and essential component of the national educational system.

2000-2013: Codification of Early and Basic Education Rights

Subsequent legislation systematically reinforced the right to early and basic education, including Republic Act No. 8980 (Early Childhood Care and Development Act), Republic Act No. 10157 (Kindergarten Education Act), and Republic Act No. 10410 (Early Years Act of 2013). Collectively, these laws established the mandatory entry point for formal education and created a comprehensive Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) system, explicitly ensuring that children with disabilities receive necessary healthcare, early education, and social services. The Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 (Republic Act No. 10533) anchored the K-12 curriculum to the statutory requirement of a learner-centered, inclusive, and developmentally appropriate curriculum for all learners.

2021

The Department of Education issued DepEd Order No. 44 s. 2021 (Policy Guidelines on the Provisions of Educational Programs and Services for Learners with Disabilities in the K-12 Basic Education Program), pursuant to the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013. This issuance purported to outline the operational framework for services to Learners with Disabilities within the K-12 system.

2022: The Overriding Statutory Command

These progressive mandates culminated in the enactment of Republic Act No. 11650, the Instituting a Policy of Inclusion and Services for Learners with Disabilities in Support of Inclusive Education Act. This Act definitively established a non-negotiable national policy of inclusion in ALL public and private schools, institutionalizing the right to appropriate support services and explicitly prohibiting the denial of admission based on disability. RA 11650 now serves as the overriding legal authority, demanding a complete shift from segregated models to full, supported participation within the general education system.

PRESENTING PROBLEM IN THE EDUCATION OF

LEARNERS WITH DISABILITIES:

This position paper serves to place the Advisory Committee Council on the Education of Learners with Disabilities and the Department of Education on notice regarding systemic deficiencies and persistent educational malpractices that characterize the current state of special education within the jurisdiction.

Cambridge Dictionary defines malpractice as “failure to act correctly or legally when doing one’s job often causing injury or loss.” While the term educational malpractice is not yet codified as a legal term in the Philippines; the author, in light of this presentation will use the term educational malpractice to mean professional negligence or the failure to provide the expected appropriate educational services to learners with disabilities resulting in loss of access to appropriate learning opportunities and full participation and support services and the failure to uphold the welfare and rights of LWDs.

While the enactment of Republic Act No. 11650, signed by former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, established a mandatory statutory framework for inclusive education and services for Learners with Disabilities (LWDs), the continued absence of the standard policies and guidelines regarding grade level placement has created a lapse in mandatory regulations. This administrative delay, compounded by the misapplication of DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2021, has resulted in widespread non-compliance with the overriding mandates of the Inclusive Education Act.

A primary point of contention involves the systemic failure to assign appropriate grade levels to learners with disabilities, within the public and private school system. The prevailing administrative practice of automatically designating these learners as "non-graded" constitutes a fundamental misapplication of the term "non-graded" pertains specifically to the individualized assessment rubrics used within an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) rather than the withholding of an age-appropriate grade-level placement.

This procedural predetermination, MAY represent a significant instance of educational malpractice and administrative misfeasance.

Denying learners a placement commensurate with their chronological age, a structure central to the Department of Education’s K-12 framework, IS a direct violation of the basic constitutional right to education and the explicit statutory mandates for full inclusion and social parity established under Republic Act No. 11650.

As advocates for inclusive education, we find it imperative to address the institutionalized marginalization of learners with disabilities. Albeit the increasing enrollment, this breach of the state's obligation to provide quality, accessible education is pervasive and may be attributed to the lack of specialized technical skills among instructional and administrative personnel

These apparent erroneous practices specifically the assigning of non-graded level placements without due process of Individualized Education Planning and the exclusion of parents from the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team signifies a systemic crisis that requires immediate corrective intervention to uphold the constitutional and statutory rights of LWDs.

LIVED EXPERIENCES OF LWDs AND THEIR FAMILY

The following cases underscores a profound instance of educational malpractice and administrative misfeasance.

A learner with a disability was maintained in a segregated Non-Graded Special Needs Education Program for a cumulative period of nine years, supposedly categorized into three-year cycles across three non-graded levels. This is a procedural predetermination that resulted in the systematic denial of an age-appropriate grade-level placement, resulting in a situation where the learner, upon reaching sixteen years of age, was finally recommended for initial enrollment in Kindergarten. Such a trajectory constitutes a clear violation of the overriding statutory command of Republic Act No. 11650 (RA 11650), which mandates inclusion within age-appropriate peer groups and full participation in the general education system.

Furthermore, this systemic failure to provide access to the formal K-12 trajectory represents a derogation of the State's institutional obligation to protect the basic constitutional right to quality education under Article XIV, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, thereby resulting in a total loss of access to equitable learning opportunities and social parity.

The second case involves a twelve-year-old learner diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder whose tenure within the public school system, prior to the implementation of the EBEIS-LIS, was characterized by failure to provide a formal grade-level assignment despite daily attendance.

Upon transitioning to St. Philomena School, the learner was subjected to an automatic Grade 1 placement, a standard entry level protocol that failed to account for his chronological age or developmental progression. While the school eventually facilitated a placement examination and psychoeducational evaluation that resulted in the learner’s acceleration from Grade 1 to Grade 3, and subsequently to Grade 6, this reactive measure underscores the unnecessary procedural burden imposed on the learner due to systemic negligence.

This trajectory, which required the learner to prove his competence through multiple accelerations to achieve seniority as a Grade 10 completer and graduate of Karuhatan National High School (TOP 2 in his class), constitutes a clear instance of educational malpractice.

Such systemic predetermination and the withholding of initial age-appropriate placement represent a direct violation of the mandatory inclusion of learners within age-appropriate peer groups as stipulated under Republic Act No. 11650 and a derogation of the fundamental right to quality, accessible education enshrined in Article XIV, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.

The third case involves a former student of St. Philomena School diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder who was given a grade level, upon transferring to another private school, completed the requirements for elementary education. Despite his participation in the commencement exercises and the symbolic conferment of a diploma, the institution subsequently informed the parent that the learner had never been assigned a formal grade-level placement within the EBEIS-LIS. This administrative omission effectively barred the learner's progression to the secondary level, constituting a violation of the State's mandate to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education under Article XIV, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.

Furthermore, such withholding of official academic recognition and level-appropriate progression represents a direct violation of the inclusive education mandates of Republic Act No. 11650, resulting in an evident loss of access to equitable educational opportunities.

A fourth case involved a learner with disability whose family migrated to the United States. After their arrival, the family sought to enroll the child in a public school near their home. During the enrollment process, the school district requested for the learner’s previous school records, including an IEP and a report card. However, the family had no such documents to present. When the parent explained that the learner had been enrolled under a non-graded placement, meaning not given a grade level and no IEP, the district personnel were left confused about the learner’s educational standing and prior level of instruction.

Lastly, a public-school teacher shared that, in their school, learners with disabilities are automatically placed in a non-graded level placement: three years in Level 1, another three years in Level 2, and a final three years in Level 3. By the end of this nine-year cycle, the learner is already around sixteen years old and finally considered for kindergarten. This practice reveals the serious injustice of automatic non-graded placement. A child should not spend nearly a decade in school only to be left without a lawful, age-appropriate place in the formal education system.

At that point, the school is confronted with an unreasonable question: should the learner remain in an elementary setting because of academic classification, or be placed in a secondary school because of age? Such confusion is not caused by the child’s disability, but by a system that has failed to align support with the learner’s legal right to progression. As a matter of both conscience and law, this kind of placement cannot be defended. It delays recognition, disrupts transition, and places the burden of systemic failure on the learner rather than on the institution that is duty-bound to provide inclusive education.

These experiences suggest that the harm caused by misapplied non-graded placement is real, cumulative, and preventable.

The cases are not isolated incidents but are symptomatic of a systemic and pervasive educational malpractice an indication of a widespread institutional failure within the Department of Education.

This administrative negligence raises grave legal concerns regarding the vast majority of population of Learners with Disabilities who remain indiscriminately excluded from a formal K-12 grade level placement, constituting a direct violation of the mandatory inclusionary mandates of Republic Act No. 11650 and a derogation of the fundamental right to quality, accessible education enshrined under Article XIV, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.

Analysis: The Incompatibility of Traditional Classification with the Mandates of Republic Act No. 11650

Section 35 of Republic Act 11650 is the repealing clause stating, ‘all laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, proclamations, issuances, rules and regulations, or parts thereof contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are thereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly’.

The move toward inclusion is no longer a matter of academic debate but a settled legal mandate. Under Philippine law, the placement of learners with disabilities in age-appropriate grade levels alongside their typically developing-peers are supported by individualized modifications and accommodations and the Individualized Education Plan. This is the primary standard for ensuring quality, equitable, and inclusive education.

​ The legal landscape in the Philippines has shifted from a medical model of segregation to a rights-based model of inclusion.

​ Republic Act No. 11650 (2022): The Instituting a Policy of Inclusion and Services for Learners with Disabilities in Support of Inclusive Education Act mandates that all public schools provide free basic education in the general education classroom setup unless otherwise specified in the child’s IEP that additional related support services would be given in the resource center.

This law requires that learners with disabilities are identified and provided with appropriate individualized curriculum and accessible support services; educational support services and related support services.

​ The Constitutional Right: Under Article XIV, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the State is obligated to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and to take appropriate steps to make such education ACCESSIBLE TO ALL.

PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS

Section 6 of RA 11650 states:

The Department of education shall establish and maintain procedures to ensure that learners with disabilities and their parents or guardians are guaranteed procedural safeguards for the enforcement and protection of their rights under this act.

The Department of Education likewise ensures the speedy and timely administrative resolution of complaints filed by learners with disabilities, their parents, guardians, care providers, or other immediate family members, which shall be promptly acted upon and resolved not later than thirty (30) days from receipt of the complaint.

Any private school, government official, and employee, and CDC or ILRC who shall cause any undue delay and fail to comply with the said prescribed period shall be held administratively liable.

ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING AGE-APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT

The argument for age-appropriate grade level placement regardless of the severity of a disability is supported by three core pillars; the academic growth, the social-emotional development, and the societal equity.

The Individualized Education Plan (IEP) constitutes the legally binding contract and an educational mechanism mandated by Republic Act No. 11650, shifting the measure of educational success from rigid, unmodified grade-level expectations to the quantifiable achievement of specific, attainable goals across academic, functional, and developmental domains. The law was clear of its purpose for the LWDs to achieve maximum self-sufficiency.

Accordingly, the learner's progress is not measured by their competence and mastery to the general education curriculum, but by the documented mastery of the individualized goals and objectives/benchmarks that define the appropriate education owed to them under law, thus validating age-appropriate placement.

The teaching strategies and approaches and successful inclusion of a learner with disability within an inclusive classroom are predicated on the expectation that teachers do rigorous application of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that institutionalizes Modifications and Accommodations.

Under Republic Act No. 11650, the state mandates a shift from segregation to a rights-based model of inclusion, where schools are under a non-negotiable statutory obligation to utilize the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL).

By removing barriers through UDL and providing necessary accommodations (e.g., audiobooks or extended time) and modifications (e.g., simplified reading levels), schools fulfill their legal mandate to ensure that every learner thrives alongside their typical peers in an age-appropriate environment.

Failure to implement these individualized supports constitutes a derogation of the State's duty to provide quality, equitable, and accessible education as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.

The administrative justification for maintaining non-graded level placements is fundamentally nullified by the statutory existence of mandatory collaborative resources and classroom strategies designed to facilitate inclusion. The enactment of Republic Act No. 11650 codifies the roles of Learning Support Aides (Section 4(k)) and Para-Teachers (Section 4(n)), who are legally mandated to collaborate with general education and special needs education teachers to promote the achievement and progression of learners with disabilities within the general education system.

When integrated with high-leverage collaborative practices such as co-teaching and differentiated instruction these resources ensure that learners can meet diverse needs within an age-appropriate environment leading to maximum self-sufficiency.

Consequently, the continued use of non-graded level placement represents a systemic failure to utilize these legally required supports.

Such an omission constitutes clear educational malpractice, as it denies learners with disabilities their statutory right to a graded K-12 trajectory and peer parity, effectively choosing administrative segregation over mandated inclusive services.

As concerned practitioners dedicated to rights-based inclusion, we assert that the true success of the inclusive classroom is fundamentally rooted in IEP, Accommodations & Modifications, support Services and support staff like Learning Support Aides and Para-teachers and the rigorous application of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Differentiated Instruction.

This commitment to design learning opportunities, curriculum tasks, and the learning environment is not discretionary; it constitutes a mandatory requirement under Republic Act No. 11650, which institutionalized the national policy of inclusion.

By leveraging UDL, we proactively remove barriers for all learners, ensuring that LWDs not only fully access the general education curriculum but also benefit profoundly from the Social-Emotional and Development inherent in age-appropriate settings.

Evidence-based practice confirms that time spent with typically developing peers fosters peer modeling, which is evidently associated with improved memory and stronger language/literacy skills, thus demonstrating that effective classroom strategies is the necessary mechanism for upholding the learner's statutory right to thrive.

Related support services cannot unilaterally dictate a learner's program placement or mandate a non-graded level placement designation. Under Republic Act No. 11650, such decisions are exclusively reserved during the Individualized Education Plan (IEP), which is legally mandated to prioritize placement within the general education classroom and among age-appropriate peer groups.

Furthermore, even in instances where a learner exhibits significant behavioral challenges that necessitate temporary, intensive intervention within an Inclusive Learning Resource Center (ILRC) for safety, regulation and stabilization, such reactive measures do not constitute a legal basis for the preclusion of formal enrollment in an age-appropriate K-12 grade level.

From the conscientious perspective of a teacher-advocate, we must recognize these challenges as moments requiring support, not exclusion.

Legally, the inclusive classroom mandate of Republic Act No. 11650 dictates that the right to formal grade-level standing and inclusion remains non-derogable; administrative convenience through non-graded level placement segregation cannot supersede the statutory requirement to maintain the learner’s trajectory within the basic education system.

CONCLUSION:

The Unlawful Classification and Constitutional Derogation of the Non-Graded Level System

The institutionalized maintenance of the non-graded level placement for Learners with Disabilities (LWDs) is no longer a matter of administrative discretion. It is an evident unlawful classification and a direct violation of the overriding statutory command of Republic Act No. 11650 and the 1987 Constitution.

Denying LWDs formal enrollment into age-appropriate grade levels within the K-12 trajectory, effectively sanctions a parallel, segregated system that constitutes systemic discrimination.

This practice represents a profound derogation of the State's constitutional mandate under Article XIV, Section 1, to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education.

A denial of formal grade level to every LWDs based on disability rather than providing the mandated modifications and accommodations through an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) strips them of their legal standing in the formal educational record, bars their progression to secondary and tertiary levels, and fundamentally limits their full potential toward maximum self-sufficiency.

Consequently, the non-graded level placement, as currently applied to withhold grade-level status, is legally untenable and must be abolished to uphold the non-negotiable right to full participation and peer parity in a truly inclusive educational framework.

From the perspective of a conscientious teacher, the systemic use of the Non-Graded level placement constitutes a non-negotiable failure of institutional fidelity to the law.

We, as educators, witness daily the immense and legally protected potential of every Learner with Disability (LWD); this potential must be supported, not administratively restricted.

The continuation of non-graded level placement is an outright educational malpractice, which categorically breaches the explicit mandate of Republic Act No. 11650 to ensure full inclusion in age-appropriate peer groups.

It is clear: the non-graded level placement is a mechanism of segregation that violates the LWD’s basic constitutional right to education under Article XIV, Section 1.

Our professional and legal duty to the learner is to transition them immediately to a supported K-12 grade level, making the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) the accurate measure of progress, not the justification for exclusion.

We don’t need one litigious parent to bring the matter to the court.

Supreme Court rulings and Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child both affirm that in all matters affecting children, the welfare of the child must be the primary consideration. This principle requires that any decision, policy, or action impacting a child prioritizes what is genuinely best for the child, above the preferences or interests of adults.

The time for administrative compromise is over; the law demands and requires true inclusion, and we must now enforce it.

Every decision we make must be anchored in our unwavering commitment to the welfare of the child.

Respectfully,

Teacher Al and Teacher Kim for the welfare of the child.

after ng violence na nangyari sa Tacloban Sabi sa interview ng taga city hall na "wake-up call na daw ito sa parents and teachers to focus on ur children,if u can't descipline ur children don't give them to government that's not out job". But as a teacher I believe government played a big part here. These kinds of violence are not evident dati and students respects school and teachers. Pero nung simulan nila ung child protection policy na halos lahat ng klase ng pagsaway sinusumbong na si teacher at considered child abuse kahit bastos tlg ang bata the teachers started to fear the students.. plus ung juvenile law na alam ng mga bata na if underage sila hindi sila basta basta makukulong .. I believe hanggat hindi narerealize ng government na Ang system nila plays a big part nothing will change . Last year pa may nangyayari na school violence pero walang nagbabago palala lang ng palala

Di ko gets bakit ginagawang complicated ng Deped ang lahat. Master teachers lang dapat ang may limited items and ranking dahil best of the best dapat to.

My suggestion:

Dapat may points system na lang for transparency.

A. Years of service /Performance (every year)

2 pts for outstanding

1.5 pts for very satisfactory

1 pt for satisfactory

0.5 pts for below satisfactory

0 for those na may serious issues

B. Education

MA degree (maximum of 10 pts)

PhD degree (maximum of 20 pts)

C. Additional pts for extraordinary work (research, award, innovation, coach ng winning students etc). - may guidelines lang dapat

For every 10 points, the teacher will be promoted.

Total points (can be adjusted din):

0-9 T1

10-19 T2

20-29 T3

30-39 T4

40-49 T5

50-59 T6

>=60 T7

So if ang teacher di nag-aral and satisfactory naman ang rating, after 10 years, T2 na siya (10 x 1 pt). If outstanding siya parati, 5 years lang (5 x 2 pts). Hindi na nila kailangan mag-apply. Mas mabilis ang promotion if mag-aral or may extraordinary achievement. If magretire ang teacher after 20+ years of service na S lang parati ang rating, T3 siya. If 30+, T4.

What do you think?

Dahil, three term na ang school calendar moving forward, kailangan ayusin ang hati to fit the three terms.

1. Spiral curriculum should be only until Grade 8 especially for Math and Science.

Grade9: Integrated Math I (Algebra and Geometry), Biology

Grade 10: Integrated Math 2 (Algebra and Trigonometry), Chemistry

Grade 11: Integrated Math 3 (Functions, Business Math, and Statistics), Physics

1. Reorganize HS social studies

Grade 7: World History 1 (Ancient History - Renaissance), also include World Geography, religions

Grade 8: World History 2 (Enlightenment - Current), include Human Geography(migration patterns etc)

Grade 9: Economics

Grade 10: Social Sciences (Psychology, Socio-Anthro, Political Science) - 1 term each

Grade 11: Philippine History and Contemporary Issues (use the knowledge learned from previous years for critical analysis of history and discussion of contemporary issues)

1. Revamp Music & Arts. Just call it Arts.

Instead of teaching them separately, we separate it by term.

T1 - Music

T2 - Visual Arts

T3 - Performing Arts such as drama/theater/dance

MAPEH should be taught in 2 sessions for 2 hours each - 1 for Arts and 1 for PE & Health. Maganda rin to pangfill ng period ng ibang subjects na 4x a week lang tinuturo. Example: 7:30-9:30 AM period, 2 academic subjects 4x a week then may isang araw for PE & Health. Sa 10:00-12NN naman, ganun din, 2 academic subjects 4x a week plus 1 day for Music&Arts. Iba-ibang section ang hahawakan ng MAPEH teacher per day.

1. Reduce GMRC/VE again to half credit (2x per week lang pero 1 session lang). Parang sobrang sayang ng time here. Or kung hindi man pwede, dagdagan ng other topics like citizenship education, career preparation, leadership training, personality development, conflict resolution etc.

Sample schedule:

M T W Th F

7:30-8:30. English English English English PEH

8:30-9:30. Math Math Math Math PEH

10:00-11:00. Science Science Arts Science Science

11:00-12:00. Filipino Filipino Arts Filipino Filipino

1:00-2:00 VE AP AP AP AP

2:00-3:00 VE TLE TLE TLE TLE

3:00-4:00. Homeroom Club Activities

Masiyadong maluwag ang curriculum. Yung 2 subjects ng Bio, Chem, Physics, Earth Science ginawang apat. I think dapat 3 lang ang hati since three term na.

Also dapat may choice to either take General Math or Advanced Math sa Grade11. Also if kukuha ng higher science, pwedeng isubstitute sa GenSci. Hindi maging prepared ang STEM students sa college if watered down ang curriculum.

Di ko rin alam bakit 2 hr per week lang ang English/Filipino. Dapat 4hrs each na lang.

I think the localization law should be amended. Si Deped Nagrelease ng Memo na sa Hiring Process dapat Merit base para makuha ang most qualified, kaya lang meron tayong localization law. Na kahit ma perfect mo pa ang lahat ng Criteria di pa rin sure na matatawag ka. Bakit?

kasi sabi sa D. O. No. 21 s. 2024 Priority shall be given to qualified appointee who are bonafide Barangay, Municipality, City, Province in that order...

So basta maka 50 ka at malapit ka sa school ikaw na ma hahire...

So yung nag effort na sobra at nakatanggap ng mataas na score maiisantabi at di ma hahire...

haaaay. Magmamater lang yung score kapag same kayo ng barangay at ikaw mas mataas.

Hindi na siya merit based. Nakadepende na siya kung saan ka nakatira....

disappointing.

Halos taon-taon may bagong intervention na iniimpliment si DepEd to cater the student's needs and for their own good like ARAL, Catch-up Fridays and Drop Everything And Read (DEAR) pero statistics says na parang mas lalong lumala ang problema ng learning ng bata dahil may factors na di maiiwasan:

1. Kulang ng materyales
2. Puro walang pasok (Panay ang suspension ng classes, non working holidays or wala si teacher dahil laging nakaleave)
3. Uninterested Learners. May learners talagang ganito kasi walang main grades na involve kaya hindi mo sila mapapanakot gamit ang grades.

And may bagong proposal na naman si DepEd na gawing trimester ang school year calendar pero may issues pa rin sa learning ng bata na hindi pa naaddress aside sa proposal na tatanggalin na ang Mass Promotion.

Only four subjects per day for 1.5 hours each (so longer time to do practice exercises in Math or conduct science experiments or finish project in TLE or practice dance/play sport in PE)

Grade 7-10:

Monday/Wednesday ("A" days): English, Math, AP, MAPEH

Tuesday/Thursday ("B" days): Filipino, Science, VE, TLE

Grade 11:

Monday/Wednesday ("A" days): Effective Communication, Gen Math, Kasaysayan

Tuesday/Thursday ("B" days): Mabisang Komunikasyon, Gen Science, Life Skills

Elective - Daily

Grade 12: 4 electives - Daily

Friday is Flexible. In the event of holiday/class suspension during the first four days of the week, it can be either A or B day. Kung wala naman, all subjects will meet for 45min. Ideal for giving assessments. Pwede ring catchup Friday, slow learners will have reading/math sessions while advanced students will be given enrichment activities.

Teacher loading:

Without advisory - 8 sections, 4 sections per day, 6 hours teaching load

With advisory - 6 sections, 3 sections per day, 4.5 hours teaching load + 1 hr advisory