DepEd Overhauls Lesson Planning Policy: Simplified, Flexible ‘ILAW Framework’ Replaces Decade-Old Guidelines to Ease Teacher Workload, Boost Learning Quality

PASIG CITY, May 29, 2026 – In a landmark move aimed at reducing administrative burden while raising the standard of instruction, the Department of Education (DepEd) has officially issued DepEd Order No. ____, s. 2026, or the Guidelines on Learning Design and Lesson Planning, a comprehensive policy that replaces the 10-year-old DO No. 42, s. 2016. The new directive introduces a streamlined, learner-centered framework known as ILAW, shifting the focus from rigid documentation to meaningful, reflective, and responsive instructional planning.

Signed by Education Secretary Sonny Angara, the policy applies to all public elementary and secondary schools, Alternative Learning System (ALS) providers, community learning centers, and basic education units of state and local universities and colleges nationwide. Private schools are also encouraged to adopt the standards, aligning with the department’s push for consistent quality across the education system. It takes effect immediately upon approval, with full implementation set by the second term of School Year 2026–2027, following a transition period.

From Compliance to Quality: The Rationale Behind the Reform

For years, teachers and ALS implementers have raised concerns that lesson planning—once a core professional tool—had become overly tedious, repetitive, and driven by compliance rather than learning goals. The previous system, which distinguished between Detailed Lesson Plans (DLP) and Daily Lesson Logs (DLL), required extensive paperwork, leaving educators with less time to design instruction that truly meets the diverse needs of Filipino learners.

“While templates provide structure, the rapidly evolving realities of our learners demand a more flexible and context-responsive approach,” the Department stated in its rationale. “This reform transforms lesson planning from a routine task into a dynamic, purposeful practice that empowers teachers as reflective professionals.”

The new guidelines align with key existing policies, including the MATATAG Curriculum (DO No. 010, s. 2024), the Three-Term School Calendar (DO No. 009, s. 2026), and the Foundational Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence (DO No. 003, s. 2026), ensuring a cohesive and modernized education system.

The ILAW Framework: Four Core Components of Effective Planning

At the heart of the new policy is the ILAW Framework, a simplified national standard that condenses lesson planning into four essential, interconnected components, replacing lengthy forms and rigid formats. Every lesson plan—regardless of subject, grade level, or delivery mode—must demonstrate these elements:

✅ I – Intentions

Teachers must clearly define what learners should know, understand, and be able to do. This involves identifying targeted learning competencies, then unpacking or clustering them into specific, achievable objectives tailored to learner readiness, available time, and context. Competencies may span multiple sessions, ensuring progression toward mastery rather than fragmented coverage.

✅ L – Learning Experience

This outlines how learning will happen. It includes selecting relevant resources—including alternative materials for emergencies or home-based learning—designing engaging pre-lesson activities, and mapping out a lesson flow that follows Learning Design Principles. Crucially, the plan is no longer a fixed script; teachers are encouraged to adjust activities in real time based on student responses, questions, or misconceptions. It also emphasizes contextualization, integration across subjects, and alignment with culture, community values, and Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs).

✅ A – Assessing Learning

Assessment is no longer confined to the end of a lesson. The policy mandates formative checks throughout the session to monitor understanding, identify gaps, and provide immediate support. Evidence of learning gathered here directly informs the next steps in instruction. For learners with disabilities or special needs, assessments must include reasonable accommodations or modifications to ensure fair and meaningful participation.

✅ W – Ways Forward

Planning does not end when the bell rings. This component requires teachers to reflect on what worked and what did not, then identify concrete next steps—whether remediation, re-teaching, or enrichment activities. It turns lesson planning into a cycle of continuous improvement, linking today’s teaching to tomorrow’s learning.

“A lesson plan is sufficient as long as these four elements are present and aligned. There is no single ‘right way’ to write it—detail depends on the teacher’s experience and the complexity of the lesson,” the guidelines clarify.

Eight Learning Design Principles: Guiding Quality Instruction

Complementing the ILAW Framework are eight Learning Design Principles, rooted in the science of learning and aligned with the MATATAG curriculum. These principles serve as a shared language for teachers, instructional leaders, and coaches, ensuring instruction is not just delivered, but designed for impact:

1. Clear Goals and Teaching: Learning targets are explicit, explained simply, and supported by examples.
2. Scaffolding: Support is provided at first, then gradually removed as learners gain confidence and independence.
3. Checks for Understanding: Ongoing, low-stakes feedback guides adjustments during the lesson.
4. Active Retrieval and Spacing: Prior learning is revisited over time to strengthen memory and mastery.
5. Self-Awareness and Metacognition: Learners are taught how to set goals, monitor their own progress, and reflect on how they learn best.
6. Social Learning: Collaboration and discussion are used to deepen understanding and build communication skills and belonging.
7. Values and Purpose Integration: Lessons connect to citizenship, character, culture, and the learner’s personal and community aspirations.
8. Inclusion: All activities and materials are designed to be accessible, with supports that remove barriers for learners with disabilities, giftedness, or diverse backgrounds.

These principles are not checkboxes to be marked off, but practices to be developed over time, ensuring every lesson offers meaningful, age-appropriate learning.

Key Reforms: Less Paperwork, More Support, Clearer Rules

📌 No More DLP vs. DLL Distinction

The long-standing separation between Detailed Lesson Plans and Daily Lesson Logs is abolished. New teachers or those handling complex topics may write more detailed plans; experienced educators may prepare concise, reflective notes. What matters is the quality of thinking, not the volume of paper. No additional forms, templates, or documentation beyond the ILAW elements may be required by regional or division offices—a direct measure to cut red tape and reduce teacher workload, consistent with DO Nos. 002 and 005 of 2024.

📌 AI: Tool, Not Replacement

With the rise of artificial intelligence, the policy sets strict boundaries:

• ❌ PROHIBITED: AI cannot be used to make core decisions—defining objectives, designing activities, or judging learner needs.
• ⚠️ LIMITED USE: AI may assist only with support tasks (rephrasing, organizing text) after the teacher has already made all instructional choices.
• ✅ GUIDED USE: AI may help with grammar, formatting, or translation—but outputs must always be reviewed and validated by the teacher.

“Human judgment, pedagogical discretion, and professional accountability remain paramount. Fully AI-generated lesson plans are not allowed,” the order states firmly.

📌 Instructional Leadership: From Inspector to Coach

School Heads, Master Teachers, and Education Supervisors are redefined as Instructional Leaders—their role shifts from checking completeness of documents to providing mentoring, coaching, and developmental feedback. Reviews will focus on alignment, application of learning principles, use of assessment data, and reflection—not compliance scores. Walkthrough observations will be frequent, short, non-graded, and focused on support rather than evaluation.

📌 Inclusive and Specialized Contexts

• Multigrade Classes: Integrated templates covering 2–3 grade levels are allowed, as long as all ILAW components are maintained.
• Learners with Disabilities: Lesson plans must align with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) under RA 11650, with collaboration with Inclusive Learning Resource Centers required.
• Indigenous Peoples Education: Planning must incorporate community competencies and Indigenous Knowledge Systems, with elders and leaders as key partners.

📌 Collaboration Over Isolation

Joint planning, sharing of resources, and digitalization are strongly encouraged. Learning Action Cell (LAC) sessions will serve as primary venues for co-planning and professional dialogue. Sharing lesson plans is now recognized as valid proof of preparation—provided all involved teachers understand and can deliver the material.

Implementation Timeline and Support

To ensure a smooth shift, DepEd has established a transition period:

• Until end of SY 2026–2027 First Term: Teachers may still use the old DLP/DLL formats.
• Second Term SY 2026–2027 onwards: Full implementation of the ILAW Framework.

The Bureau of Learning Delivery (BLD) and National Educators’ Academy of the Philippines (NEAP) will lead capacity-building programs, coaching workshops, and development of reference guides and exemplars. Regional and Division offices are tasked with monitoring workload, quality, and learner outcomes to ensure the policy delivers on its promise.

Lesson plans should be archived for at least three years—preferably digitally—and will serve as evidence of professional growth, research material, and reference for coaching.

A Step Toward MATATAG Education

“This policy is more than a revision of forms—it is a redefinition of what it means to be a teacher and a learner in the Philippines,” Secretary Angara emphasized. “By freeing our educators from unnecessary paperwork, we let them focus on what truly matters: designing lessons that inspire, include, and empower every Filipino child.”

The Guidelines on Learning Design and Lesson Planning stand as a cornerstone of the MATATAG agenda—ensuring that education is Maalaga (Caring), Tiyak (Certain), Aksyon (Action-oriented), Tama (Correct), Adapto (Adaptive), and Galing (Excellent).

DepEd ORDER

No. 016, s. 2026

GUIDELINES ON LESSON PLANNING AND LEARNING DESIGN

To:

Undersecretaries
Assistant Secretaries
Minister, Basic, Higher, and Technical Education, BARMM
Bureau and Service Directors
Regional Directors
Schools Division Superintendents
Public and Private Elementary and Secondary School Heads
State/Local Universities and College Heads
All Others Concerned

1. The Department of Education (DepEd) issues the enclosed Guidelines on Lesson Planning and Learning Design which recognize the need to strengthen and refine the policy on daily lesson preparation to better support effective teaching and meaningful learning.
2. This Order establishes a more flexible, efficient, and context-responsive framework for lesson planning across all key stages to further improve teaching quality and learner outcomes. It reinforces DepEd’s system-wide commitment to continuous instructional improvement, where teachers, alternative learning system (ALS) implementers, and instructional leaders use lesson planning, reflection, and assessment data to enhance teaching and learning practices.
3. In alignment with DepEd Order (DO) No. 009, s. 2026 or the “Guidelines on the Implementation of the Three-Term School Calendar in Basic Education,” this Order repeals DO No. 42, s. 2016 or the “Policy Guidelines on Daily Lesson Preparation for the K to 12 Basic Education Program.” All other related issuances or any provisions thereof inconsistent with this Order are likewise repealed, rescinded, or modified accordingly.
4. This Order shall take effect immediately upon its approval, and fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation, and filing with the Office of the National Administrative Registrar (ONAR) at the University of the Philippines Law Center (UPLC), UP Diliman, Quezon City.
5. For further information, please contact the Bureau of Learning Delivery at bld.od@deped.gov.ph, located at the DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City.

6. Immediate dissemination of and strict compliance with this Order is hereby directed.

SONNY ANGARA
Secretary

Encl.:As stated

References:DepEd Order (Nos. 009, s. 2026 and 42, s. 2016)
To be indicated in the Perpetual Indexunder the following subjects:
BASIC EDUCATION
BUREAUS AND OFFICES
CURRICULUM
LEARNERS
POLICY
PROGRAMS
PROJECTS
RULES AND REGULATIONS
SCHOOLS
MSM, JMC, DO Guidelines on Lesson Planning and Learning Design0216 – May 29, 2026

GUIDELINES ON LEARNING DESIGN AND LESSON PLANNING
I. RATIONALE
The Department of Education (DepEd) previously issued guidelines, including but not limited to the following: (i) DepEd Order (DO) No. 8, s. 2015, or the “Policy Guidelines on Classroom Assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program”; (ii) DO No. 42, s. 2016, or the “Policy Guidelines on Daily Lesson Preparation for the K to 12 Basic Education Program”; (iii) DO No. 55, s. 2016, or the “Policy Guidelines on the National Assessment of Student Learning for the K to 12 Basic Education Program”; (iv) DO No. 010, s. 2024, or the “Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the MATATAG Curriculum”; (v) DO No. 022, s. 2024, or the “Revised Guidelines on Class and Work Suspension in Schools During Disasters and Emergencies”; (vi) DO No. 017, s. 2025, or the “Revised Basic Education Enrolment Policy”; and (vii) DO No. 003, s. 2026, or the “Foundational Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Basic Education”, all of which played an important role in establishing a system for lesson planning. Over time, however, some practices such as accomplishing the lesson plan forms became overly tedious and compliance-driven, limiting opportunities for reflective, purposeful, and learner-centered instructional planning. While lesson planning templates provide structure and organization, the rapidly evolving needs and realities of Filipino learners call for a more flexible and context-responsive approach to planning instruction.

2. In response to these shifting demands, DepEd issues these Guidelines to transform instructional planning into a dynamic, responsive, and sustainable pedagogical practice. By aligning lesson planning with learning design principles, teachers and alternative learning system (ALS) implementers are empowered to focus more meaningfully on the teaching and learning process, promote holistic learner development, and improve learning outcomes.

II. SCOPE

3. These Guidelines provide guidance for teachers and Alternative Learning System (ALS) implementers in the preparation of their lessons. These shall apply to all public elementary and secondary schools, DepEd-operated community learning centers (CLCs), DepEd-recognized ALS Providers, and basic education units of state or local universities and colleges (SUCs and LUCs). Private elementary and secondary schools are encouraged to adopt these Guidelines, in alignment with their respective institutional policies.

III. DEFINITION OF TERMS

4. The following terms are operationally defined in accordance with relevant laws, policies, and frameworks:

a. ILAW Framework – Refers to the lesson planning framework adopted under this Order that identifies the essential components of lesson planning, namely: (a) Intentions, (b) Learning Experience, (c) Assessing Learning, and (d) Ways Forward. It serves as the simplified national standard for designing focused, coherent, and responsive learning experiences.

b. Instruction – Refers to the methods, approaches, and processes used to facilitate learning.

c. Instructional Leadership – Refers to the deliberate practice of supporting teaching and learning through evidence-based feedback and contextualized coaching to systematically improve quality of teacher/ALS implementer practice and learner achievement.

d. Instructional Leader – Refers to School Heads, Head Teachers, Master Teachers, ALS Focals, Education Program Supervisors for ALS, and other personnel designated to perform instructional leadership functions, including but not limited to Grade Level Coordinators, Learning Area Coordinators, Department Heads, and Head Teachers reclassified as Teachers V to VII, subject to succeeding issuances on instructional leadership and supervision.

e. Learning Design Principles – Refer to instructional principles that shape the intended learning experience and promote coherent, responsive, and learner-centered teaching rather than compliance-oriented practice (see Section B).

f. Learning Experience – Refers to the sequence of activities, interactions, assessments, and supports designed to help learners achieve the intended learning goals.

g. Lesson Planning – Refers to the professional responsibility of teachers and ALS implementers to intentionally prepare for instruction. Effective lesson planning involves the thoughtful consideration of learning goals, instructional strategies, assessment methods, differentiation, and learner needs to support meaningful learning experiences for diverse learners.

h. Lesson Plan – Refers to the instructional tool that documents a teacher’s or ALS implementer’s instructional thinking and intended learning process. This definition supersedes distinctions between the Detailed Lesson Plan (DLP) and Daily Lesson Log (DLL) in DO No. 42, s. 2016 or the “Policy Guidelines on Daily Lesson Preparation for the K to 12 Basic Education Program.” The lesson plan components prescribed in this policy shall apply to both new and experienced teachers or ALS implementers.

i. Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications – Refer to adjustments made to the learning environment, instructional delivery, materials, assessment, or learning tasks to support learners with disabilities, learning difficulties, and giftedness in inclusive settings without imposing disproportionate or undue burden on schools or implementers. Accommodations may include changes in time, materials, devices, quantity of tasks, or learning environment. On the other hand, modifications may involve adjustments to learning objectives, content, or performance expectations to ensure meaningful participation and access to learning for all learners.

IV. POLICY STATEMENT

5. DepEd issues these Guidelines to institutionalize flexible, efficient, and context-responsive lesson planning as an integral component of quality teaching and learning. The revised lesson planning policy recognizes teachers and ALS implementers as reflective professionals who exercise sound pedagogical judgement in designing meaningful learning experiences responsive to learner needs and contexts.
6. This Order likewise supports the role of instructional leadership in strengthening lesson planning as a process for professional growth, collaboration, and continuous instructional improvement. Through reflective practice, constructive feedback, and coaching, instructional leaders shall help teachers and ALS implementers enhance their professional capacity in alignment with their identified needs, instructional goals, and learner outcomes.

V. POLICY PROCEDURES

A. SIMPLIFYING LESSON PLANNING

7. The lesson plan shall serve as a tool for organizing instructional thinking, which will guide the teaching-learning process. To simplify lesson planning, the following ILAW Framework, which consists of four (4) core elements, shall be used by teachers and ALS implementers:

a. I: Intentions

i. Learning competencies. Teachers and ALS implementers shall identify the learning competencies to be targeted during the learning session. Competencies may span several lessons, provided that each session contributes to clear and progressive goals toward learner mastery.

ii. Learning objectives. Teachers and ALS implementers shall unpack, cluster, or sequence learning competencies into clear, focused, and manageable learning objectives aligned with learner readiness, instructional context, and available learning time to support meaningful mastery.

b. L: Learning Experience

i. Learning resources. Teachers and ALS implementers shall select learning resources that are relevant, appropriate, and aligned with the learning objectives. Alternative learning resources for home-based learning shall be prepared should face-to-face instruction be interrupted, specifically for Hinay level situations (i.e., circumstances where learners experience mild stress and learning needs to be intentionally slowed down), as detailed in the Guidelines for Learning Continuity in Emergencies.

ii. Pre-lesson activity. Teachers and ALS implementers shall design brief introductory activities, routines, or check-ins that activate prior knowledge, establish readiness, and prepare learners for the learning session.

iii. Lesson flow. Teachers and ALS implementers shall apply learning design principles throughout the learning session to ensure that the learner experience remains coherent, engaging, responsive, and developmentally appropriate. Instruction shall be adjusted based on learner responses, questions, misconceptions, and emerging needs rather than through rigid adherence to the sequence of activities plotted in the lesson plan.

iv. Opportunities for integration and contextualization. Teachers and ALS implementers shall identify opportunities to meaningfully connect lessons within and across learning areas, integrate contextualized and human-centered uses of technology, and incorporate relevant real-life, cultural, or community-based contexts that enrich learner understanding and engagement.

c. A: Assessing Learning

i. Formative assessments. Teachers and ALS implementers shall conduct formative checks throughout the learning session to monitor learner understanding and progress toward learning objectives. These assessments shall guide immediate instructional adjustments and help identify learners who demonstrate strong understanding as well as those who may require additional instructional support.

d. W: Ways Forward

i. Reflective practice. At the end of each lesson/session, teachers and ALS implementers shall reflect on the teaching experience and evidence of learning. Thereafter, they shall identify next instructional steps, such as remediation, re-teaching, enrichment, among others.

ii. Extended learning opportunities. Teachers and ALS implementers may provide additional learning experiences within or beyond the classroom to reinforce learners’ knowledge, skills, values, or competencies of learners. These opportunities may also serve as enrichment or remediation for learners requiring additional support.

8. Teachers and ALS implementers shall use the Lesson Planning Rubric (see Annex A) as a self-check tool to determine the alignment of their respective lesson plans with the essential standards set in these Guidelines. Master Teachers, School Heads, and instructional leaders shall use the rubric in providing coaching, mentoring, and developmental feedback on lesson planning and instructional practice.
9. The rubric shall be used only to support professional reflection and instructional improvement, and not as a compliance checklist or scoring tool for paperwork completion.
10. Teachers and ALS implementers shall not be required to include components beyond those prescribed in the framework. Additional documentation, excessive detail, or expanded lesson planning requirements that do not directly support teaching and learning shall be avoided.
11. To support teachers and ALS implementers in implementing the ILAW Framework, a simplified lesson planning guide is provided (see Annex B). The lesson planning guide shall serve only as a reference tool and shall not be interpreted as a required national template. DepEd shall focus on alignment with the ILAW Framework rather than the use of a specific lesson planning template or format. A lesson plan shall be considered sufficient when the learning intentions, learning experience, assessment approach, and ways forward are evident and aligned.
12. Collaborative lesson planning, shared resources, digitalization, and other workload-reducing practices shall be encouraged to support teacher well-being and instructional quality.
13. For teachers and ALS implementers, the Individual Learning Agreements (ILAs) and similar learner profiles shall serve as important references in lesson planning to ensure responsiveness to learner needs, contexts, and goals.

14. Teachers assigned to multigrade classes shall adhere to the same standards for lesson planning applicable to monograde classrooms. However, to support the effective management and delivery of differentiated instruction, multigrade teachers may use integrated lesson planning templates that accommodate two (2) or three (3) grade levels simultaneously, provided that all essential lesson plan components are maintained.
15. For teachers and ALS implementers handling learners with disabilities (LWDs), the Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), as defined under Republic Act (RA) No. 11650, otherwise known as the “Instituting a Policy of Inclusion and Services for Learners with Disabilities in Support of Inclusive Education Act,” shall serve as a critical reference in lesson planning. Teachers and ALS implementers with LWDs in their classes are encouraged to collaborate with Inclusive Learning Resource Centers (ILRCs), Special Needs Education Centers, and other relevant institutions or community partners to strengthen inclusive practices and meaningfully integrate interventions into instruction. Lesson planning shall ensure that reasonable accommodations and modifications are provided so that LWDs can meaningfully participate in learning experiences with appropriate support.
16. These lesson planning components may likewise guide collaborative planning between Indigenous Peoples Education (IPEd) teachers and community resource persons, such as, but not limited to, community elders and leaders. Community competencies and Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) shall also be appropriately reflected in the lesson plan.

B. LEARNING DESIGN PRINCIPLES

17. The Learning Design Principles describe the intended learning experience and the core features of effective instruction. Aligned with the Curriculum Instructional Design Framework that is described in DO No. 010 s. 2024, or the “Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the MATATAG Curriculum,” these principles guide teachers and ALS implementers in selecting instructional methods and approaches responsive to their learner needs and contexts. These principles may be applied at any stage of the lesson.
18. These principles serve as a guide in lesson planning and instructional decision-making. While not all principles are expected to be evident in every lesson, teachers and ALS implementers are encouraged to intentionally apply them over time so learners can regularly experience varied, meaningful, and developmentally appropriate learning experiences.

19. The principles also establish a common instructional language across DepEd, strengthening collaborative lesson design, reflective practice, and purposeful instructional leadership.

Table 1. DepEd’s Learning Design Principles

C. LESSON PLANNING AS A TOOL FOR BETTER TEACHING

20. Lesson planning shall remain responsive to learner needs, instructional contexts, and teacher capacity rather than strictly adhering to pre-planned activities or prescribed formats. Recognizing that there is no single way to write a lesson plan, the form and level of detail of lesson plans shall depend on the specific instructional situation and the professional developmental needs of the teacher or ALS implementer. Instructional leadership shall likewise remain flexible, providing differentiated and targeted support that enables teachers and ALS implementers to achieve their professional goals.

a. Lesson plans may be more detailed when teachers or ALS implementers are handling new, unfamiliar, or complex content, learners, strategies, tools, resources, or modalities. Such lesson plans may help instructional leaders better understand how teachers make instructional decisions, apply the Learning Design Principles, and identify areas where teacher competencies may be further strengthened.

b. As teachers gain confidence and proficiency in the technical and pedagogical aspects of teaching, they may prepare more concise lesson plans that allow greater focus on reflective note-taking, experimentation with instructional approaches, and continuous refinement of practice. In these instances, instructional leaders shall serve as partners in reflection, facilitate the processing of insights, support innovation, and create opportunities for collaborative learning and knowledge sharing.

21. Regional Offices (RO), Schools Division Offices (SDO), schools, and CLCs shall not require additional or expanded lesson plan templates, supplementary forms, or documentation beyond the simplified standards prescribed in Section V(A) of this Order. This policy seeks to promote consistent, non-repetitive, and supportive lesson planning practices across governance levels.
22. Teachers and ALS implementers may use lesson guides, lesson exemplars, or instructional materials provided by the Central Office (CO), ROs, SDOs, or external partners as reference materials, provided that they remain fully responsible for preparing lesson plans responsive to their learners’ needs and contexts. Such materials may be modified or adapted in accordance with the framework prescribed in this Order.
23. Consistent with DO No. 003, s. 2026, or the “Foundational Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence in Basic Education,” the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in teaching, learning, and assessment shall function strictly as an auxiliary tool to augment instructional design, feedback mechanisms, and administrative efficiency. The exercise of human judgment, pedagogical discretion, and professional accountability shall

remain paramount in all educational processes; therefore, AI systems are prohibited from replacing the essential role of teachers or the holistic evaluation of learners. Consequently, fully AI-generated lesson plans shall not be allowed.

24. Overreliance on AI tools may limit opportunities for teachers and ALS implementers to deepen pedagogical thinking through the lesson planning process and reinforce rigid or overly standardized approaches to instruction.
25. In accordance with DO No. 003, s. 2026, any use of AI assistance in lesson planning shall be declared according to the following AI Use Categories:

a. Prohibited AI Use in Lesson Planning. AI tools shall not be used for core instructional decision-making, including defining learning objectives, unpacking competencies, designing learning experiences and instructional strategies (i.e. the ILAW Framework), and/or making critical judgments in response to learners’ needs. Reliance on AI for these core teaching functions limits the development of teacher pedagogical judgment, responsiveness, and professional expertise.

b. Limited AI Use in Lesson Planning. AI may be used in a limited capacity for support tasks and functions (e.g. rephrasing, organizing, or refining text) only after key instructional decisions (i.e. the ILAW Framework) have already been made and after consultation with co-teachers, instructional leaders, or relevant stakeholders has been maximized. All AI-generated outputs shall remain subject to teacher review, validation, and adaptation. AI outputs shall never replace teacher or ALS implementer thinking.

c. Guided AI Use in Lesson Planning. For routine and technical support tasks, AI may serve as a low-risk tool to assist teachers and ALS implementers. Acceptable uses include grammar and spelling checks, improving clarity of language, formatting support, and translation assistance. All AI-generated outputs shall be carefully reviewed and validated by the teacher and ALS implementer prior to integration in the lesson plan to ensure alignment with their intended meaning and instructional purpose.

D. LESSON PLANNING AS A COLLABORATIVE EXERCISE

26. Collaborative lesson planning shall be encouraged as an opportunity for teachers and ALS implementers to share instructional strategies, effective practices, and learning resources. Such collaboration may help streamline instructional preparation, reduce duplication of effort, and strengthen alignment of learning competencies across learning areas, grade levels, and key stages. Collaborative processes create meaningful opportunities for peer coaching, mentoring, and professional learning.

27. Schools and CLCs shall have flexibility in determining appropriate structures and mechanisms for collaborative lesson planning. Learning Action Cell (LAC) sessions and similar peer-learning platforms may serve as venues for collaborative planning and reflective professional discussions.
28. The sharing of lesson plans shall be encouraged and recognized as valid evidence of teacher or ALS implementer preparation, provided that all participating teachers and ALS implementers understand the shared materials and are capable of delivering it effectively.

E. LESSON PLANNING AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT

29. Teachers and ALS implementers who are newly hired, newly assigned to a learning area, or identified by instructional leaders as needing additional instructional support shall receive structured guidance in lesson planning. Such support may include instructional coaching, collaborative lesson planning sessions, mentoring on Learning Design Principles and the use of lesson exemplars or models. Increased instructional support shall not result in additional documentation requirements, expanded templates, or unnecessary administrative burden.
30. Teachers and ALS implementers shall use lesson plans as tools for reflecting on their teaching practices, enabling them to examine instructional decisions, identify areas for improvement, and strengthen instructional approaches over time. As teachers and ALS implementers gain professional experience, they may adapt lesson planning templates or develop personalized formats, provided that the requirements of this Order and other relevant laws, rules, regulations, if any, are complied with.
31. The lesson plan shall serve as a record of reflective learning design that captures instructional thinking, understanding of learner needs, and insights for improving instruction. It shall guide quality lesson delivery and may also serve as a professional reference that other teachers and ALS implementers may study, analyze, and learn from to support professional growth.
32. Lesson plans shall likewise be used as tools for developmental feedback. Instructional leaders shall not focus solely on checking the completeness of documents when reviewing lesson plans. Instead, there shall be mentoring, coaching, and feedback shall focus on the following:

a. Alignment and coherence of essential lesson components in relation to learner developmental readiness and context;

b. Intentional application of Learning Design Principles as well as integration of classroom routines, culture, and expectations, throughout the lesson;

c. Use of evidence of learning and reflections to improve lesson delivery and subsequent lessons, and;

d. Instructional design and teaching practices as reflections of the teacher’s beliefs about teaching and learning, as well as the strengths they are developing in the facilitation of learning.

33. Instructional leaders are highly encouraged to conduct frequent, non-rated, formative walkthrough observations, typically lasting approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes, or longer when schedules permit, to observe how lesson plans are enacted in practice. These informal walkthroughs shall enable instructional leaders to provide timely, constructive, and developmental feedback without the pressure associated with formal performance evaluation.

VI. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

34. The following Offices shall implement measures in support of this Order:

a. The Bureau of Learning Delivery (BLD) and Bureau of Alternative Education (BAE) shall jointly design cost-effective strategies for communicating lesson planning guidelines and shall coordinate closely with ROs and SDOs to ensure technical support reaches the schools and CLCs. The BLD and BAE shall also develop technical assistance mechanisms to strengthen lesson design practices, in collaboration with relevant offices across governance levels, such as, but not limited to, the Curriculum and Learning Management Division (CLMD) and Curriculum Implementation Division (CID).

b. The National Educators’ Academy of the Philippines (NEAP), in collaboration with the Bureau of Human Resource and Organizational Development (BHROD) and other relevant offices, shall provide capacity-building programs for public school teachers, ALS implementers, and instructional leaders on lesson planning, instructional coaching, and reflective practice. Such programs shall be made accessible to private school teachers and school leaders and personnel of private ALS implementers.

c. The BLD, BAE, NEAP, and BHROD shall collaborate to strengthen the instructional leadership and coaching dimensions of the Performance Management and Evaluation System for teachers to ensure that teachers receive sustained professional support.

d. The BLD, BAE, NEAP, and BHROD shall coordinate with the Teacher Education Council (TEC) to strengthen pre-service and in-service professional development related to lesson planning, instructional leadership, and teacher education.

35. The ROs shall monitor the impact of this Order on the workload of teachers and ALS implementers, instructional quality, and learner experience. The CLMD, Human Resource Development Division (HRDD), and NEAP in the Regions shall provide technical assistance and capacity-building support to SDO supervisors to strengthen their capability to mentor instructional leaders effectively.
36. The SDOs shall orient and capacitate school and CLC personnel on formative coaching and mentoring practices. The CID and the Schools Governance and Operations Division – Human Resource Development Section shall provide technical support for lesson planning and coordinate closely with the CO, ROs, and relevant partners in developing professional development opportunities related to lesson planning and instructional leadership.
37. At the school and CLC level, the following shall be implemented:

a. School Heads and ALS Focals shall provide regular opportunities for collaborative lesson planning and strategically position instructional leaders to support teachers and ALS implementers. LAC sessions may serve as primary venues for peer learning, sharing effective practices, aligning competencies, and co-creating lesson plans.

b. School Heads and ALS Focals shall lead qualitative reviews of lesson plans to ensure alignment with curriculum standards and learner needs. Findings from these qualitative reviews of lesson plans shall be the basis for coaching, technical assistance, and instructional support.

c. Consistent with DO No. 002, s. 2024 or the “Immediate Removal of Administrative Tasks of Public School Teachers” and DO No. 005, s. 2024 or the “Rationalization of Teachers’ Workload in Public Schools and Payment of Teaching Overload,” school heads and ALS Focals shall ensure that teachers/ALS implementers are relieved of administrative tasks and have ample time for ancillary tasks, including the preparation of lesson plans. School heads and instructional leaders shall support the gradual simplification of lesson planning practices and reduce unnecessary documentation requirements.

d. School heads and ALS Focals shall organize participatory conferences and reflective discussions among teachers and instructional leaders to analyze the impact of lesson planning on learner outcomes and collaboratively develop strategies for improving instructional planning practices.

e. Teachers and ALS implementers shall archive lesson plans in either digital or printed formats for reference, reflection, and professional learning purposes. A three-year retention period is recommended, but may be overruled for lesson plans deemed to be exceptional cases or used as samples for professional development and/or coaching purposes. The archiving system shall be organized at the school level, and shall primarily be used for school-level documentation, research, and reference for instructional coaching.

VII. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

38. The BLD and BAE shall lead the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of this Order. The BLD shall take the lead in developing the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework and corresponding implementation mechanisms across all governance levels. A policy evaluation shall likewise be conducted every three (3) years to assess the extent to which the intended outcomes of this Order are achieved and to further strengthen its provisions and effectiveness.
39. The ROs, through the CLMD, shall ensure adherence to the principles of this policy and set in place mechanisms to monitor the effects of this Order on teacher workload, instructional quality, and learner experience. The CLMD shall assess field-level conditions and provide technical assistance and capacity-building support to SDO personnel to effectively coach and support instructional leaders at the school level.
40. The SDOs, through the CID, shall continuously assess the needs of teachers, ALS implementers, and instructional leaders to provide context-responsive and appropriate technical assistance on lesson planning and instructional leadership. Such support may likewise include identifying and addressing barriers that hinder effective lesson planning, instructional delivery, and instructional leadership practices.
41. At the school level, School Heads shall continuously assess the instructional needs of teachers, evidence of learning, and classroom realities to guide responsive instructional support, coaching, and professional development interventions.

VIII. FUNDING

42. Expenses related to the implementation of this Order shall be primarily charged against the Basic Education Curriculum Fund and other available authorized funding sources, subject to existing budgeting, accounting, auditing, and procurement laws, rules, and regulations. A separate guidelines on the release and utilization of funds for this purpose shall be issued accordingly.

IX. TRANSITORY PROVISION

43. As part of the transition to the revised lesson planning policy, teachers may use the DLL or DLP formats specified in DO No. 42, s. 2016 until the end of the first term of School Year (SY) 2026–2027. Appropriate capacity-building and technical assistance activities shall be conducted during the transition period to prepare teachers and ALS implementers for the full implementation of the revised lesson planning guidelines beginning the second term of SY 2026–2027.

X. EFFECTIVITY

44. This Order shall take effect immediately after its approval and fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation and filing with the Office of the National Administrative Registrar (ONAR) at the University of the Philippines Law Center, UP Diliman, Quezon City.

XI. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

45. If any provision or part thereof is held invalid or unconstitutional by a competent court, the remaining provisions of this Order shall not otherwise affect or remain valid and subsisting.

XII. REPEALING CLAUSE

46. This Order repeals DO No. 42, s. 2016. All other issuances or any provisions thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Order are likewise repealed, rescinded, or modified accordingly.

XIII. REFERENCES

• DO No. 42, s. 2016 or the Policy Guidelines on Daily Lesson Preparation for the K to 12 Basic Education Program
• DO No. 42, s. 2017 or the National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers
• DO No. 024, s. 2020 or the National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads
• DO No. 003, s. 2026 or the Foundational Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Basic Education
• DO No. 010, s. 2024 or the Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the MATATAG Curriculum
• DO No. 002, s. 2024 or the Immediate Removal of Administrative Tasks of Public School Teachers
• DO No. 005, s. 2024 or the Rationalization of Teachers’ Workload in Public Schools and Payment of Teaching Overload
• DepEd Memorandum DO No. 017, s. 2025 or the Interim Guidelines for the Department of Education Performance Management and Evaluation System for Teachers in the School Year 2024–2025
• DM No. 089, s. 2025 or the Guidelines on the Multi-Year Performance Management and Evaluation System for Teachers from School Years 2025–2026 to 2027–2028; and DM No. 291, s. 2008 or the Guidelines for the Implementation of CSC Resolution 080096 on Working Hours for Public School Teachers

ANNEX A

LESSON PLANNING RUBRIC

Table

Notes for my instructional coaching session: