TEACHER EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM (TEDP)
A Proposal by the Department of Education for
consideration by CHED, TEIs, PRC, CSC & all other
interested stakeholders and beneficiaries
Final Report
Allan B. I. Bernardo
DepEd BESRA, KRT2 Consultant
October 17, 2006
TEDP Report, page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Background
There is agreement among most stakeholders of the Philippine formal education
sector that teaching is one of the key factors for attaining improvements in student
learning. This tacit agreement is the reason why most of the educational
interventions by the government and the private sector focus on improving teacher
capacities. However, there is clearly no agreement about what types of teaching
improvements are needed and thus, the various efforts that are directed at improving
teaching might not be converging towards a common ideal. What is worse is that
most of the assumptions underlying the various approaches to improving teaching
are based on outdated views about teaching and learning, such as the following:
1.1. Teaching as a technical skill involving transmission of knowledge. Many of the
processes and practices in teaching and teacher development assume that
teaching involves the proper execution of a prescribed set of technical skills (i.e.,
teaching strategies/methods) for effectively transmitting desired knowledge (i.e.,
curriculum content) to students. This assumption is manifested in many ways:
1.1.1. The typical pre-service teacher education curriculum emphasizes the
mastery of various teaching methods and of subject matter knowledge.
1.1.2. Hiring procedures of the DepEd give a lot of weight on demonstration of
teaching methods.
1.1.3. Supervision and monitoring of teachers involve regulating and strictly
observing the execution of or compliance with prescribed teaching
processes.
1.1.4. In-service education for teachers often focuses on equipping teachers
with new strategies and/or updating their content knowledge.
1.2. Teacher development as accumulation of knowledge for application. Many of
the efforts directed at developing the capacities of teachers are informational,
that is, focused on providing information for teachers on new knowledge about
the technical skills and the subject matter they need to teach. This assumption
is manifested in many ways:
1.2.1. The typical pre-service teacher education curriculum is content-driven,
and pre-service teachers are expected to apply all the knowledge and
skills they acquire in whatever classroom they are assigned.
1.2.2. The Licensure Examination for Teachers is focused purely on cognitive
knowledge about the different knowledge and skills teachers are
supposed to know (see 1.1.1).
1.2.3. In-service education for teachers (INSET) takes the form of
decontextualized informational activities (lecture seminars, short-term
inputs) that teachers are supposed to apply in their respective contexts.
1.3. Teacher development as gaining credentials on knowledge acquired. The
various processes that seek to recognize professional development are focused
on the accumulation of paper credentials that are supposed to certify the
acquisition of new knowledge that teachers have acquired, without ascertaining
whether this knowledge is actually applied to improve teaching practice. This
assumption in many ways:
TEDP Report, page 3
1.3.1. The typical pre-service teacher education curriculum is designed to allow
students to accumulate units corresponding to discreet areas of learning
through course work.
1.3.2. Pre-service teachers obtain their Bachelors degree in education largely
based on accumulation of prescribed units, which may or may not reflect
actual competence.
1.3.3. Passing the Licensure Examination of Teachers involves demonstrating a
minimum level of knowledge, reflected in a total score in a purely
cognitive test of teacher knowledge.
1.3.4. Hiring policies of DepEd put a lot of weight on credentials-based criteria,
which may not reflect actual knowledge or competence.
1.3.5. Promotion policies of DepEd also put a lot of weight on acquiring new
credentials (graduate units, graduate degrees, certificates of attendance
of seminars/workshops, etc.) which may or may not reflect actual
competence.
The above assumptions are based on teacher-centered educational processes that
prescribe appropriate knowledge, skills, and behaviors for teachers that are
supposed to make them more effective transmitters of knowledge to students, who
are passive recipients of the teachers’ actions and knowledge. These teachercentered educational processes tend to develop low-levels of student involvement
and interest in the learning process, and often lead to low-levels of student learning.
Approaches to teacher development seem to be premised on the same general
assumptions, with the teachers viewed as passive recipients of teacher educators’
actions and knowledge. Such teacher development processes also tend to develop
teachers who view teaching as involving the strict and exact execution of prescribed
actions, and who have low levels of understanding about their practice.
2. Emerging Positive Approaches and Practices
Amidst this general environment of incoherent and outdated beliefs and practices
related to teaching and teacher development, there are pockets within the formal
education sector that strive to systematically reform these beliefs and practices.
There seems to be a coherent set of themes and assumptions that underlie these
reforms, many of which are based on contemporary educational research and
theory, and the contextualized application of such in varied local contexts.
2.1. Teaching as flexible adaptation of knowledge and skills to facilitate learning in
diverse types of learners. Most of the positive reform initiatives also emphasize
the important role of technical knowledge and skills in teaching. However, the
reform efforts take a less prescriptive view about the use of such knowledge and
skills. Instead, reform efforts emphasize the mindful and flexible application of
different teaching knowledge and skills to help different types of learners attain
varied learning goals of the curriculum, using assorted resources available in
diverse learning environments. This theme is manifested in several positive
reform efforts:
2.1.1. Teacher education institutions and curricula that emphasize the
development of learner-centered approaches to teaching that require
teachers to integrate and to adapt various teacher knowledge and skills
TEDP Report, page 4
depending on the subject matter, the characteristics of the learners and
learning environments.
2.1.2. New types of items in the Licensure Examination for Teachers that
require the applicant to determine the best approach to solving actual
teaching-learning problems in hypothetical cases.
2.1.3. School-based initiatives (supported by Division and Regional offices) that
allow teachers to modify curriculum, to innovate in their teaching
methods, and to adjust the learning environments and resources to better
suit the learners.
2.1.4. INSET programs that allow teachers to contextualize the new knowledge
and strategies within the specific subject matter and learning environment
in their schools, to ensure maximum impact on their students’ learning.
2.2. Teacher development as active and reflective transformation of knowledge and
skills in actual contexts. Teacher development efforts that are successful in
reforming actual teaching practices are characterized by some important
features. These teacher development activities engage teachers in active,
interactive, problem-oriented, hands-on, and creative group activities, instead of
having teachers passively receive new inputs. These teacher development
activities also engage teachers in critical reflection on whether their current
practices and beliefs actually bring about effective student learning. Finally,
these teacher development activities are contextualized and situated in
environments that can support meaningful teacher growth. There are several
manifestations of these features:
2.2.1. The new teacher education curriculum that extends and intensifies the
experiential learning component of the pre-service education of teachers.
2.2.2. INSET programs that involve intensive, interactive, and problem-oriented
activities that require teachers to create and transform their current
practices.
2.2.3. INSET programs that require teachers to assess and to critique current
practices and systems in their teaching context.
2.2.4. School-based INSET that capitalize on the good practices, knowledge
and resources within the actual teaching-learning environments.
3. Integrating Positive Practices and Reforms into a Common Framework
The DepEd needs to systematically transform the current beliefs, practices and
systems related to teaching and teacher development so that these become more
effective in helping more Filipino students attain the learning goals defined in the
basic education curriculum.
It cannot do so if it continues to perpetuate the incoherent and outdated practices
related to teaching and teacher development. Such practices include:



a relatively passive and hand-off stance regarding the pre-service education of
teachers and the licensure or certification of teachers;
hiring of teachers without careful consideration of the quality of their pre-service
education;
hiring of teachers not on the basis of demonstrated competence and potential for
facilitating student learning;
TEDP Report, page 5



maintenance of teacher supervision practices that impose conformity;
unselective endorsement of and support for any kind of INSET program; and
systems of promotion and recognition that are not based on demonstrated
competence in improving student learning, among others.
The DepEd needs to undertake a few strategic reforms that involve a focused and
integrated set of actions sustained over the medium term that would allow for the
mainstreaming of successful practices and efforts to improve teaching. The strategic
actions towards these strategic reforms are dependent on two core initiatives:
3.1 The articulation of a singular competency-based framework for teaching and
teacher development that would guide all policies, reforms, and activities
related to teaching and teacher development, and which shall be called the
National Competency Based Teacher Standards (NCBTS).
3.2 Taking the lead to require all important stakeholders including all the offices
within the DepEd, the CHED, the Teacher Education Council, the Civil
Service Commission (CSC), the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC),
the teacher education institutions (TEIs), the various education-related NGOs
and civic organizations, private and corporate foundations, and all other
groups to adopt the single competency-based framework.
After these two core initiatives are completed, the following major reform thrusts
should be pursued:
3.3 Collaborating with the CHED and TEIs to continuously upgrade the preservice teacher education system in alignment with the NCBTS, especially in
the experiential component of the curriculum.
3.4 Push for and support efforts to improve capacities of TEIs and to improve
CHED efforts to monitor, regulate, and rationalize the pre-service teacher
education system.
3.5 Push for reforms in the licensure examination of teachers, and if necessary,
an extensive overhaul of the system of certification of professional teachers
to better align the system with the NCBTS.
3.6 Supporting orientation and advocacy activities in all levels of the DepEd
leading to a deep understanding and appreciation of the NCBTS.
3.7 Promote and support the use of the NCBTS as a framework for personal
appraisal and professional development planning of all teachers.
3.8 Selectively support INSET activities that are aligned with the NCBTS and the
positive themes of teacher development activities (see 2.2).
3.9 Systematically review and revise hiring, promotions, supervision, and
recognition policies and practices within the DepEd to be aligned with the
NCBTS.
TEDP Report, page 6
4. Specific Proposed Actions
4.1 The National Competency-Based Teacher Standards (NCBTS). The NCBTS is
the proposed common framework for all teaching and teacher development
programs in the Philippine formal education sector. The NCBTS is a coherent
and integrated definition of the different dimensions of good teaching that leads
to high levels of student learning. The contents of the NCBTS were derived from
(a) educational theories and empirical research on characteristics learning
environment and teaching practices that lead to effective student learning, and
(b) documented successful practices and programs of schools, divisions, regions,
and educational reform projects in different parts of the country.
The NCBTS defines seven domains within which teachers can develop
professionally. The seven domains can be classified into two broad categories,
the first category can further be divided into two sub-categories:
4.1.1
4.1.2
Domains that relate to the teacher as facilitator of learning
4.1.1.1 Domains on the knowledge and skills for facilitating learning
4.1.1.2 Domains on linking the knowledge and skills to context
Domains that relate to the teacher as a learner
The domains can be schematically represented as follows:
DOMAIN 1: SOCIAL
REGARD FOR LEARNING
DOMAIN 2: THE LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT
DOMAIN 3: THE DIVERSITY
OF LEARNERS
DOMAIN 4: CURRICULUM
DOMAIN 5: PLANNING,
ASSESSING & REPORTING
DOMAIN 6: COMMUNITY
LINKAGES
DOMAIN 7: PERSONAL
GROWTH & PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
TEDP Report, page 7
Under each domain, specific strands and indicators are defined. The indicators may
be differentiated in terms of the nature and quality of the competency; the
consistency, frequency, and appropriateness of the competency; and the teacher’s
self-awareness about how the competency is related to effective student learning.
4.2 Proposed Actions in Support of the NCBTS. Several specific actions are
proposed. The key thrusts and priority actions are defined in 3.1 to 3.9. The
detailed actions related to the different phases of teacher development are
summarized in the following table.
Phase in Teacher
Development Map
Setting up of NCBTS
Proposed
Action #
1
2
Pre-Service Teacher
Education
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Licensure of Teachers
11
Recruitment and Hiring
12
Induction
In-Service Education
13
14
15
16
17
18
Supportive Environment
19
20
21
22
Proposed Action
Joint inter-agency resolution adopting the NCBTS as
unified framework for teacher development
Information dissemination, orientation and advocacy on
the NCBTS
Reforming Recruitment, Admission and Retention Policies
of Pre-Service Teacher Education
Aligning the Pre-Service Teacher Education Curriculum
with the NCBTS
Developing Effective Mechanisms for the Experiential
Learning Component of Pre-Service Teacher Education in
Public Schools
Medium-Term Development Plan for Capacity Building for
Teacher Education Institutions
Identifying COEs Mandated to Assist in Capacity Building
of TEIs
Library and Resource Development Program for TEIs
Rationalization and Stronger Monitoring Teacher
Education Institutions
Strengthening Alternatives to The Pre-Service Teacher
Education Curriculum
Reforming the System of Licensing and Certification of
Professional Teachers
Revising the Policies for Recruitment, Hiring, and
Deployment of New Teachers
Mandatory Induction Programs Permanency
Assessment of Teacher Development Needs
Program of Needs-Based and School-Based In-Service
Teacher Development Programs
Revising the Policies for the Academic Supervision of
Public School Teachers
Revising the Framework and Policies for the Evaluation of
Teacher Performance
Revising the Policies for the Promotion of Teachers and
Selection of Master Teachers
Adoption of NCBTS for All Awards and Recognition for
Teachers
Development of System for Assessing Teaching Quality
of Schools
Campaign for Improved Working Conditions and
Environments for Teachers
Basic and Applied Research on Teacher Development to
Support Policy and Development Programs
TEDP Report, page 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
2
Table of Contents
8
List of Tables and Figures
11
List of Annexes
12
1.
Background
13
2
Introduction and Overview
13
3.
The Teacher Development Continuum
15
3.1 Partnerships for Teacher Education and Development
18
3.2 A Common Vision of Ideal Teaching Qualities
21
3.3 Teacher Development in Contexts
22
3.4 Summary of Teacher Development Continuum
23
4. The National Competency Based Teacher Standards (NCBTS)
24
5
4.1 Changing Paradigms of Teaching
25
4.2 Changing Assumptions about Teachers
29
4.3 Defining the Features of Good Teaching
31
4.4 The Structure of the NCBTS
33
4.5 The Domains
34
4.6 Integrating the Domains
38
4.7 Using the NCBTS for Teacher Development
41
Reforming Recruitment, Admission and Retention Policies
45
of Pre-Service Teacher Education
6
Aligning The Pre-Service Teacher Education Curriculum
with the NCBTS
48
TEDP Report, page 9
7
Developing Effective Mechanisms for the Experiential
49
Learning Component of Pre-Service Teacher Education in
Public Schools
8
Capacity Building for Teacher Education Institutions
53
9
Rationalization and Stronger Monitoring Teacher
59
Education Institutions
10
Strengthening Alternatives to the Pre-Service Teacher
62
Education Curriculum
11
Reforming the System of Licensing and Certification of
65
Professional Teachers
12
Revising the Policies for Recruitment, Hiring, and
68
Deployment of New Teachers
13
Mandatory Induction Programs Permanency
73
14
Assessment of Teacher Development Needs
76
15
Program of Needs-Based and School-Based In-Service
78
Teacher Development Programs
16
15.1
Focus of Inset Programs
79
15.2
Mode and Qualities of Inset Programs
80
15.3
Administration of Inset
83
Revising the Policies for the Academic Supervision of
88
Public School Teachers
17
Revising the Framework and Policies for the Evaluation of
90
Teacher Performance
18
Revising the Policies for the Promotion of Teachers and
Selection of Master Teachers
94
TEDP Report, page 10
19
Adoption of NCBTS for All Awards and Recognition for
96
Teachers
20
Development of System for Assessing Teaching Quality of
97
Schools
21
Campaign for Improved Working Conditions and
98
Environments for Teachers
22
Basic and Applied Research on Teacher Development to
100
Support Policy and Development Programs
22.
Summary of Proposed Actions
102
Resources
106
Annexes
109
TEDP Report, page 11
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1.
Summary of Key Concepts of Teacher Development
24
Continuum and Map
Table 2.
Contrasting the Paradigms of Teaching and Teacher
29
Development
Table 3.
Summary of Proposed Actions
103
Table 4.
Summary of Proposed Actions by Priority
104
Figure 1.
The Teacher Development Map
16
Figure 2.
Reform Outcomes of TEDP and NCBTS in Different
17
Phases of Teacher Development Map
Figure 3.
Schematic representation of the seven integrated domains
of the NCBTS.
40
TEDP Report, page 12
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex A
Prototype NCBTS Indicators
Annex B
Pre-Service CBTS Indicators
Annex C
RCBTS Indicators for Region 1
Annex D
RCBTS Indicators for Region 2
Annex E
RCBTS Indicators for Region 3
Annex F
RCBTS Indicators for Region 4a
Annex G
RCBTS Indicators for Region 4b
Annex H
RCBTS Indicators for Region 5
Annex I
RCBTS Indicators for Region 6
Annex J
RCBTS Indicators for Region 7
Annex K
RCBTS Indicators for Region 8
Annex L
RCBTS Indicators for Region 10
Annex M
RCBTS Indicators for Region CAR
Annex N
RCBTS Indicators for Region CARAGA
Annex O
RCBTS Indicators for Region NCR
TEDP Report, page 13
1.
BACKGROUND
The Teacher Education & Development Program (TEDP) is a package of immediate
program reforms and longer-term policy reforms in teacher development. The TEDP
has been progressively reconceptualized, redeveloped and revised during the past
seven years since it was first conceived in 1999. Numerous discussions, workshops,
consultative forums (including a web-based exchange of ideas), and formal papers
have contributed to this document.
The primary focus of the TEDP is improving teaching quality in basic education, but
the proposed reform targets go beyond the basic education system. As such the
TEDP is conceptualized as a joint reform package of the Department of Education
(DepEd), the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the Professional Regulatory
Commission (PRC), the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and all other such agencies
that have a stake and a role in improving teaching quality in basic education.
The TEDP is intended to rationalize various teacher development efforts under a
common framework and to provide a focus for project investment possibilities for
both short and long-term interventions in order to foster and develop teacher
education in the Philippines.
2
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
The TEDP is premised on the following assumptions, most of which have already
been covered extensively in numerous forums and reports over the past few years.
Some factors are dependent on others – some of them stand alone as essential
elements of the TEDP:
TEDP Report, page 14
(a) The UNESCO-supported program of Education for All (EFA) is directed
towards satisfying the Basic Learning Needs of all members of Philippines
society, and includes learning by children and adults that occurs both inside
and outside schools. The TEDP dovetails closely with EFA;
(b) Basic Education is the only formal schooling that the majority of Filipinos will
receive in their lifetime; for many, this is limited to an incomplete elementary
education;
(c) Non-formal and Informal Education (or what is now called Alternative
Learning Systems), constitute the out-of-school learning that is sometimes
devalued as meaningful learning;
(d) The teacher is still a major factor in the formal basic education process, and
is a key agent in learning quality improvements in the formal education
process;
(e) The teaching profession has been slow in adapting and responding to
changes in society and to the accompanying changes in curricular and
instructional requirements to foster learning in diverse types of learners and
learning environments;
(f) In the light of (e) above, Teacher Education, comprising both the Pre-service
Education of Teachers (PET) and the In-Service Education of Teachers
(INSET), has had very limited success in bridging the growing gap the
knowledge and skills of both new and existing teachers on the one hand, and
the needs and expectations of learners and of the human resource
development needs and expectations of other stakeholders of education in a
globalized knowledge society.
TEDP Report, page 15
The TEDP was conceived as an attempt to revitalize and at the same time reform
teacher education and to make it more responsive to the demands of a modern
society.
3. THE TEACHER DEVELOPMENT CONTINUUM
Teacher education is a continuum that commences at the recruitment of high school
students into the teacher education institutions (TEIs) and concludes sometime
around retirement, or perhaps even after.
The problems and issues in teacher
education are not clearly demarcated in this continuum and they cannot be confined
within the administrative jurisdiction of one single agency nor can they be insulated
from the sphere of duty of other agencies.
Thus, teacher education (PET and
INSET) must be seen as a unified system.
This unified system can be represented in the Teacher Development Map shown in
Figure 1. The map has been developed and progressively revised following inputs
from many stakeholders and interested persons, and shows the linkages between
the (a) Initial Entry to Teacher Education, (b) Pre-service Teacher Education, (c)
Teacher Licensure, (d) Recruitment and Deployment within the system, (e) Induction
Training, (f) In-service & Professional Development and finally, (g) Retirement
Preparation and then Retirement. The focus of reform efforts shall be on the six
solid boxes [from (a) to (f) above].
The agencies with primary responsibility for
implementing the reforms in each stage in the cycle are also shown in the map. At
this point it is worth noting that the preservice education and in-service education of
teachers are both joint responsibilities of the DepEd and the CHED (and teacher
education institutions), and this will be discussed more extensively later.
For
TEDP Report, page 16
recruitment and deployment within the system, it should be clarified that the Civil
Service Commission has jurisdiction only over the public schools, but not the private
schools. It is proposed that the TEDP will address each of these elements in a
phased manner, and that a common framework -- the National Competency Based
Teacher Standards -- shall undergird all the reforms in these various phases.
TEACHER DEVELOPMENT MAP
CHED/TEIs
Retirement
Entry to
Teacher
Education
Preparation
DepED/CHED/TEI
s
In-Service Education
and Professional
Development
CHED/TEIs/Schools
NATIONAL
Pre-Service Teacher
Education
(BEEd/BSEd/PGCEd))
COMPETENCYBASED TEACHER
DepED
STANDARDS
Teacher
Induction
PRC
Teacher
Licensure
DepED/CSC
Teacher Human Resource
Planning, Recruitment,
Selection, Deployment and
Recognition System
Figure 1. The Teacher Development Map.
The map also indicates that even the non-continuous phases should be interrelated,
as indicated by the broken lines. Finally, although reform efforts will not be directed
at the retirement phase, this is nevertheless an important component of the teacher
TEDP Report, page 17
education development map, as there is the option for some truly exemplar retired
teachers to re-enter the development map by joining teacher education institutions
as teacher educators in the preservice education phases.
If the TEDP is able to attain all its reform goals, we can expect improve qualifications
of teachers for each of the phases of the teacher development map, as shown in
Figure 2.
TEACHER DEVELOPMENT MAP
More qualified
preservice teachers
Entry to Teacher Education
PreService Teacher Education
Teacher HR Planning, Recruitment, Selection, Deployment
& Recognition System
Teacher
Induction
In-Service Education and
Professional Development
Phases of Teacher Development
TEDP AND NCBTS
Teacher Licensure
More qualified teacher
education graduates
More qualified licensed
professional teachers
More qualified teacher
applicants and hirees
More qualified beginning
teachers
More qualified teachers
in the service
Outcomes of TEDP/NCBTS
Figure 2. Reform Outcomes of TEDP and NCBTS in Different Phases of Teacher
Development Map
TEDP Report, page 18
Conceptualizing teacher development as a continuum represented in the Teacher
Development Map mandates three important and interrelated principles pertinent to
the process of teacher development. These principles are discussed in the following
subsections.
3.1. Partnerships for Teacher Education and Development
One of the difficulties for educational reform in the present Philippines structure for
delivery of educational services is the trifocalization of educational administration
within the Department of Education (DepEd), the Commission on Higher Education
(CHED), and the Technical & Skills Development Authority (TESDA). In terms of
Teacher Education for Basic Education, a further bifurcation allocates the
responsibility for PET to CHED and INSET to DepEd. Such a structure can be
unwieldy, and does not allow for the easy resolution of those teacher education
issues that do not readily separate themselves into distinct compartments under the
jurisdiction of either PET and/or INSET.
In this regard, the TEDP has been initiated to advocate a greater formal partnership
between the Commission on Higher Education/Teacher Education Institutions
(CHED/TEIs), and Department of Education (DepEd) Public Schools (Elementary &
Secondary) for the improvement of both pre-service and in-service teacher
education, and of the larger environment in which teachers develop professionally.
Thus, the TEDP also includes as active partners the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
and the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) since both bodies have key
roles to play in the employment of new teachers and the accreditation of all
employed teachers.
TEDP Report, page 19
The DepEd has a most critical role in this partnership, as it should be the agency that
takes the lead in the overall reform process.
The DepEd is the single largest
employer of teachers, and is thus the single most responsible agency as regards the
quality of teachers. As such, the DepEd is also the agency that needs to ensure that
all the other involved agencies (i.e., CHED, PRC, CSC, etc.) are accountable for
teacher development activities and programs under their jurisdiction. For example,
as the largest employer of graduates of the preservice education programs, the
DepEd should take strong steps to work with the CHED and teacher education
institutions to make sure that the graduates of the preservice programs have the
competencies and qualifications required in the public schools. The same holds true
for the PRC as regards the professional teachers they license, and so on. Therefore,
it is imperative that the DepEd take the lead in in formalizing the partnerships needed
across the different agencies for the TEDP reforms.
The greater formal partnership among the various agencies can be expressed in
many different undertakings related to specific aspects of the teacher education
continuum. Some of these are:
3.1.1. The articulation of a common framework for defining the desired
teacher competencies.
All the concerned agencies should collectively define and be guided by a singular
framework for characterizing the ideal and desired teacher competencies.
The
collective framework should be one that is derived from the specific needs and goals
of the different agencies, but negotiated and validated by the shared and
interconnected experiences of the different agencies. In practice, the framework
TEDP Report, page 20
shall guide (a) the TEIs’ policies related to the recruitment, admission, and retention
of students, (b) the CHED’s and the TEIs’ design of the pre-service teacher
education curriculum, (c) the PRC’s design and administration of the licensure
examination of teachers, (d) the DepEd’s policies on recruitment, hiring, retention,
and promotion of teachers, (e) the DepEd’s, TEI’s and other agencies’ design and
implementation of in-service teacher education programs, among all other activities
related to teacher development.
3.1.2. Partnership
and
cooperation in
design and
implementation of
experiential learning for pre-service teachers.
The CHED/TEIs and the DepEd Public Schools have been cooperating, albeit in a
very limited scale, in an important component of the pre-service education of
teachers. In some cases, TEI’s deploy their pre-service teachers to selected public
schools for their practice teaching. The rationale for such deployment is that one of
the most powerful forms of learning takes place when the pre-service teachers
encounter authentic teaching-learning environments within which they can apply,
integrate, deepen, validate, and critically reflect on their emerging knowledge and
skills under the supervision of seasoned teachers in the service. As it is desirable to
expand such experiential learning in the pre-service teacher education process, it is
important that the DepEd acknowledges its potent role in the pre-service preparation
of teachers, and readily take on the effective execution of this role. Likewise, the
CHED/TEI’s should recognize the importance of DepEd’s role by collaboratively
defining the mechanism for implementing the experiential learning courses in the
pre-service teacher education curriculum.
TEDP Report, page 21
3.1.3. Partnership and cooperation in design and implementation of in-service
teacher education programs.
There is also a great role for the TEIs in providing improved and more intensive inservice (INSET) teacher education programs for public school teachers.
The
teachers in the public schools shall strive to develop themselves professionally
through a variety of INSET activities. Local TEIs can design and provide such INSET
activities in collaboration with the DepEd based on the latter’s determination of the
professional development needs of the teachers and the form of INSET activity that
is best suited to the working conditions and requirements of public schools teachers.
3.1.4. Synergy in advocacy and support for improved working conditions and
environments for teachers.
The various agencies and stakeholders of teacher development should also come
together in advocating for better working conditions for teachers and teacher
educators within which teacher development processes necessarily take place. The
same stakeholders need to reach out and engage other sectors of the immediately
local community and the larger society to ensure that there would be appropriate
forms of support for teacher development efforts.
3.2. A Common Vision of Ideal Teaching Qualities
The different elements of the Teacher Development Map are held together by a
common vision of the knowledge, skills, values, and practices of the ideal teacher.
One consequence of the trifocalization of educational services is that the different
concerned agencies may be working on different assumptions about what the ideal
teacher qualities are. Thus, it is possible that the qualities being developed in the
CHED/TEI’s pre-service curriculum are not the essential qualities that Licensure
TEDP Report, page 22
Examination for Teachers assesses, or that the DepEd wants in the teachers to be
hired. Having a common vision of the ideal teacher and of ideal teaching ensures
that all stakeholders are considering and moving towards only one singular vision of
the ideal.
This common vision is defined in terms of an interrelated network of competencies
that are most important in bringing about effective learning on the part of students.
Thus, although there are many possible conceptualizations and dimensions to these
conceptualizations of good teaching and good teachers, the TEDP defines the
common vision of ideal teachers and ideal teaching in terms of demonstrable
competencies that are germane to desired student learning outcomes.
The
reference to demonstrable competencies allows the individual teachers and all those
they work with to more easily assess their current teaching practices and plan for
their personal professional development goals and activities.
The emphasis on
competencies related to promoting student learning calls attention to all stakeholders
that the ultimate beneficiary of improved teaching quality is the student.
3.3
Teacher Development in Contexts
The Teacher Development Map also subtly underscores the overlooked feature that
all teacher development occurs in specific contexts under the auspices of different
agencies. But the reality is that the utilization of all teacher development outcomes
needs to redound to the classrooms of learners situated in various communities in
different parts of the country. Thus, there is a need to ensure that the learning from
the different teacher development outcomes would be easily transferred and adapted
to the actual classroom environments within which teachers facilitate learning. In this
TEDP Report, page 23
regard, the TEDP highlights the importance of contextualizing professional
development programs within the various actual environments in which teachers
teach.
Contextualization is emphasized in the expansion of the experiential learning
components of the new pre-service teacher education curriculum, where pre-service
teacher would be start field observations as early as the second year of study,
gradually intensifying into more involved participation in actual classroom activities,
and culminating in actual teaching in the final year of study. Contextualization shall
also be emphasized in the in-service teacher education programs that would be
initiated and undertaken by principals and school heads to improve teaching
practices for their own teachers to improve learning outcomes for their own students
in their particular schools.
These and other expressions of contextualization in
teacher development activities are premised on the understanding that although
there are many valid and useful sources of knowledge for improved teaching, the
most important forms of knowledge are those that teachers are able to appropriately
and effectively utilize to improve student learning within their unique and actual
teaching-learning contexts.
3.4
Summary of Teacher Development Continuum
Thus far, there are a number of key concepts that characterize the TEDP, as
expressed in the Teacher Development Continuum and the Teacher Development
Map. It is important to highlight these concepts, particularly as they emphasize new
forms of understanding and approaching the problems and processes of teacher
development
that are markedly different from traditional or
conceptualizations. These concepts are summarized in Table 1.
“old school”
TEDP Report, page 24
Table 1. Summary of Key Concepts of Teacher Development Continuum and Map
The Old School
The TEDP
Teacher development is defined in
discrete and mutually exclusive stages.
Teacher development is defined in a
continuum of interrelated phases.
Different agencies are responsible for
each stage of teacher development.
Different agencies are collectively
responsible for the continuous processes
of teacher development.
Pre-service teacher education is the sole
responsibility of the higher education
system.
Pre-service teacher education is the joint
responsibility of the basic and higher
education systems.
In-service teacher education is the sole
responsibility of the basic education
system.
In-service teacher education is the joint
responsibility of the basic and higher
education systems.
There are diverse explicit and implicit
articulations of the qualities of good
teaching.
There is one coherent framework
defining the qualities of good teaching.
Teaching quality is defined in terms of
accumulation of credentials (degrees,
units, certificates, forms, etc.)
Teaching quality is defined in terms of
demonstrable competencies pertinent to
facilitating student learning.
Knowledge and skills of teaching are
generic and are applicable to all teaching
contexts for all types of learners.
Knowledge and skills of teaching are
contextualized and need to be adapted
to specific learners and environments.
4. THE NATIONAL COMPETENCY BASED TEACHER
STANDARDS (NCBTS)
The core of the TEDP is the common framework for teaching quality, which is
referred to as the National Competency Based Teaching Standards (or NCBTS). As
mentioned in the preceding section, a common vision of the ideal teacher and of
ideal teaching ensures that all stakeholders are considering and moving towards only
TEDP Report, page 25
one singular vision of the ideal. It also avoids the possibility that different sectors of
the teacher education community are pushing divergent or even contradictory views
related to ideal teaching.
The importance of this singular framework cannot be
overstated, and as such the NCBTS shall from the cornerstone of the TEDP, which
all the directly and indirectly concerned agencies should adopt for their teacher
development efforts.
4.1
Changing Paradigms of Teaching
The NCBTS articulates a view of ideal teaching that is closely linked to current
understanding about effective learning. Thus, the qualities of the good teacher are
not defined in an abstract technical sense, as teaching is not viewed merely as a
technical process that is executed with prerequisite inputs and expected outputs.
This traditional paradigm of teaching might still be underlying most of the teacher
development activities and processes of many agencies and organizations. This
traditional paradigm views the teacher as a technician who must master a set of
technical knowledge and skills and then apply this repertoire of technical know-how
to different teaching situations.
This traditional paradigm also assumes that the
teacher requires certain minimum inputs (e.g., classroom physical environment,
textbooks, behaved and motivated students, etc.) in order to produce the target
outputs (i.e., coverage of curriculum).
Related to this traditional paradigm of
teaching is a teacher develop paradigm which involves providing pre-service or inservice teachers inputs about new and current technical knowledge, which the
teacher is then expected to apply to her existing practice.
We can say that the underlying theme of this traditional paradigm of teaching and
teacher development is the “acquisition application, and transmission of technical
TEDP Report, page 26
knowledge.” Teacher development involves the acquisition of technical knowledge.
Teaching practice involves the application of this knowledge, often by transmitting
the prescribed knowledge to the students.
The TEDP expounds on a new paradigm of teaching and teacher development in the
NCBTS.
First, the teacher is not viewed as a technician, but as a knowledge
professional who is responsible for facilitating learning in variety of learners and
learning environments. This view underscores not only the technical knowledge of
teacher, but more important, the essential link between teacher’s knowledge and
students’ learning. Thus, teachers’ knowledge and skills are meaningful, useful, and
effective only in so far as they help students learn in whatever learning environment
they are studying. In a manner of speaking, teachers do not only teach, they teach
learners. As such, the qualities of good teaching can only be defined in terms of the
effects on the learner, which renders the technical knowledge of teaching as
essentially complex and problematic in that it has to be suited to varieties of learners
and learning environments.
Second, because the technical knowledge of teaching is complex and problematic,
the process of teaching does not involve the mere application of the technical
aspects of teaching. Instead, it involves the critical and reflective utilization of varied
teaching-learning approaches to engage various types of learners in diverse types of
learning environments.
The second key concept in the new teaching paradigm
relates to the teacher’s active involvement in designing, redesigning, and evaluation
of the students’ learning experiences. The image of the teacher is not one who is
mindlessly applying generic teaching strategies to transmit any subject matter for any
type of learner, but one who is constantly reflecting and problematizing how best to
TEDP Report, page 27
help different types of learners learn.
The teacher is not a mere peon who
implements pre-defined and prescribed sets of actions; instead, the teacher is an
active agent engaged in higher level thinking about how to help the students learn.
This high level thinking processes involved in teaching necessarily refer to variables
in the learning context – the changing character of students, the higher levels of
knowledge in the curriculum, the inconstant resources in the learning environment.
Thus, the third important concept in the new paradigm of teaching is that it is
experienced and situated in varied contexts. The development and application of
teachers’ knowledge and skills should also be closely linked to the contexts in which
they will be facilitators of learning in students. Teaching processes never occur in a
vacuum, as such teacher knowledge is never abstract. It is important to appreciate
that teachers will always aim to be effective within their actual contexts; the contexts
provide constraints as well as prospects for effective student learning.
This teaching paradigm view teaching as “reflective acquisition and application of
complex and problematic technical knowledge to facilitating student learning
in actual contexts.” This new paradigm should be applied to how we understand
the qualities of good teaching, as well as how we approach the process of teacher
development. Thus, effective teaching involves the active reflection on how to best
facilitate learning in their diverse students in their contexts, and teacher development
also involves active reflection on old and new technical knowledge about teaching as
they are experienced and applied in the specific school contexts.
This new paradigm of teaching also reconceptualizes the role of teachers in the
formal education bureaucracy. For a long time in the Philippine formal education
TEDP Report, page 28
system, teachers may have been treated as mere subordinates in the education
bureaucracy, who are supposed to follow orders handed down from the top, and who
are monitored for their compliance with such directives. By and large, teachers have
not been given the power to make important decisions related to curriculum,
instruction, assessment, and many of the key educative processes related to student
learning. The new paradigm conceptualizes the role of the teacher as a professional
who is expected to make decisions for the sake of their students, as they are the
agents of the educational bureaucracy who are in direct contact with the students
and are in the best position to assess their learning needs. Thus, the new paradigm
also empowers the teacher within the bureaucracy, and treats them as responsible
individuals, who are responsible and accountable for their students’ learning.
The empowerment of teachers also extends to the teacher development process.
The current teacher development processes assume that teachers are passive
recipients or beneficiaries of training programs, whether preservice or in-service. But
the new paradigm of the puts the teachers themselves at the front and center of the
teacher development process, as they take responsibility for transforming their
teaching knowledge and practices in their attempts to help their students learn better.
Research in many parts of the world has shown how features of the traditional
paradigms tend to be associated with low levels of student learning and slow or
negligible improvements in teaching practices.
In contrast, features of the new
paradigm of teaching have been associated with successful transformations of
teaching practices that lead to improved student learning. The essential differences
between the traditional and new paradigm of teaching and teacher development are
summarized in Table 2.
TEDP Report, page 29
Table 2. Contrasting the Paradigms of Teaching and Teacher Development
The Old School
The TEDP
Teacher knowledge is technical
knowledge applicable to all learners and
contexts.
Teacher knowledge is essentially
complex and problematic; applicability
varies across learners and contexts.
Teaching involves consistent application
of technical knowledge.
Teaching involves reflective and flexible
application of technical knowledge in
ways that best bring about student
learning.
Effective application of teacher
knowledge dependent on prerequisite
inputs in teaching environment.
Effective teaching is determined within
the limits and opportunities found in the
learning environment.
The teacher is a subordinate of the
formal educational bureaucracy who is
monitored for compliance with directives
from higher authorities.
The teacher is a professional who is
empowered to make important decisions
in the educational process and is
accountable for their students’ attainment
of learning goals.
Teacher development in informational; it
involves providing new and updated
technical knowledge for teachers.
Teacher development is
transformational, experiential, and
contextual; it involves engaging teachers
to critically reflect on old and new
technical knowledge as these facilitate
student learning in actual contexts.
Teachers are passive recipients of new
technical knowledge in the teacher
development process.
Teachers are active and reflective
processors and constructors of teacher
knowledge, who are responsible for their
own development as teachers.
4.2
Changing Assumptions about Teachers
Various studies on the roots of the problems of student learning in the Philippine
implicate the teacher as one of the key factors.
Indeed, research studies by
educational scholars as well as by the DepEd point to deficiencies in teacher
knowledge and practices. Unfortunately, however, interpretations of such findings
are often accompanied with rather cynical stereotypes of teachers as intellectually
TEDP Report, page 30
challenged, unmotivated and lethargic professionals who hold themselves and their
students to low standards, and worse, who are unwilling to grow and change with the
times. Such notions are often based on anecdotes, and are not based on actual
sound empirical data, and should therefore be strongly repudiated. Perpetuating this
wrong stereotype actually undermines all teacher development efforts, particularly
those of the personal professional development attempts of teachers. Thus it is
important to reconstruct our assumptions of Filipino teachers.
Doing so would
provide a more progressive approach to the problem of teacher development in the
basic education system, consistent with the new paradigm described in the
preceding subsection.
In this regard, the TEDP poses the following key assumptions related to teachers
and teacher development:
4.2.1
Individual teachers have various types and levels of motivation to improve
their teaching in ways that better enhance student learning.
4.2.2
Individual teachers have different capabilities to constantly improve their
teaching for better student learning.
4.2.3
Individual teachers have diverse ranges of opportunities to pursue their
motivations and raise their capabilities to teach better, in whatever situations
they are.
4.2.4
The process of improving teacher is an individual process, but this is
sustained and enhanced when the efforts are collaborative and synergistic
among communities of teachers.
4.2.5
Individual teachers may develop improved teaching practice for enhanced
student learning, but the full impact on student learning is best achieved by
integrated and cumulative improved efforts of many teachers.
TEDP Report, page 31
4.2.6
The qualities of good teaching for enhanced student learning are found in
individual teachers, but such qualities are strengthened and valued more
when it is supported by communities of teachers and educators.
The six assumptions provide a positive platform within which teachers and
communities of teachers can be engaged in their own professional development.
The NCBTS assumes diversity in the motivations, capacities, and opportunities for
personal professional development, and thus, respects the individual aspirations and
realities of all teachers.
It also assumes that although the unit of teaching
improvement is always the individual teacher, the process and impact is enhanced
and sustained when communities of teachers work in synergy. These assumptions
should guide the use of the NCBTS for teacher development efforts.
4.3
Defining the Features of Good Teaching
After defining the broad paradigm for teaching and teacher development, and
clarifying the assumptions that should guide the approach to teacher development,
we can now begin defining the features of good teaching. There are already many
articulations of the qualities of good teaching.
In most of the articulations, the
qualities of good teaching are implied in the set of criteria for evaluating teachers for
hiring, promotion, or recognition. The NCBTS does not reinvent the wheel, and
instead draws from previous articulations. However, the NCBTS specifies that the
qualities of good teaching should be defined in terms of an interrelated network of
competencies that are most important in bringing about effective student learning.
Thus, ideal teachers and ideal teaching is defined in terms of demonstrable
competencies that are germane to desired student learning outcomes.
TEDP Report, page 32
As discussed earlier, the reference to demonstrable competencies allows the
individual teachers and all those they work with to more easily assess their current
teaching practices and plan for their own professional development goals and
activities. The reference to demonstrable competencies emphasizes the need to
determine what the teachers are actually competent in or what they are capable of
doing. Such demonstrable competencies are not dependent on paper credentials
(e.g., advanced degrees or graduate units, certificates of participation in seminars or
workshops, etc.). Thus, the CBTS recognizes that there are many different routes to
acquiring competence, and what counts is being able to demonstrate competence.
The NCBTS also features competencies that can be acquired and developed. Thus,
the NCBTS does not include trait-like qualities that may be not be modified by the
teacher through any professional development activity. Instead, the competencies
included in the NCBTS are knowledge, skills, practices, values, and ways of thinking
and acting that may be learned and developed with personal motivation and effort.
This developmental orientation of the NCBTS subverts the notion that “good
teachers are born, not made.” Instead, the NCBTS, and indeed the TEDP assumes
that although some persons may be born with some qualities that predispose them to
become good teachers, any person with the proper motivation, work ethic, and social
support can become the good teachers they aspire to be.
The emphasis on competencies related to promoting student learning calls attention
to all stakeholders that the ultimate beneficiary of improved teaching quality is the
student. It could be argued that the best demonstration of teaching competency is
student learning outcomes. However, we must recognize that there is a wide range
TEDP Report, page 33
of interrelated factors that determine actual student learning outcomes, and thus, it
might be unfair to assess the competency of the teacher solely in terms of student
learning outcomes. Instead, it is more appropriate to assess teachers’ competencies
in terms of whether they demonstrate teacher behaviors that are known to be
associated with effective student learning.
In this regard, the various teaching competencies included in the NCBTS were
determined using a research-based process.
First, the desired level of attained
student learning outcomes were defined, then the observed features of teachinglearning processes associated with these learning outcomes were determined. From
these observed features of the ideal teaching-learning processes, the demonstrated
features of the relevant teaching practices were described. Thus, the first set of
competency-based teacher standards was derived from observed teaching practices
that are associated with teaching-learning processes that produce high levels of
student learning.
This first set was subjected to a series of consultations,
workshops, discussions, and validation, which resulted to the current version,
described in this TEDP.
4.4
The Structure of the NCBTS
The competency-based teacher standards are organized hierarchically.
highest level, the standards are categorized into seven domains.
At the
A domain is
defined as a distinctive sphere of the teaching-learning process, and is also a welldefined arena for demonstrating positive teacher practices. Each domain is defined
in terms of a principle of ideal teaching associated with enhanced student learning.
TEDP Report, page 34
At the second level of the hierarchical organization, that is, under each domain, there
are strands. Strands refer to more specific dimensions of positive teacher practices
under the broad conceptual domain.
At the lowest level of the hierarchical organization, under the strands, specific
indicators are defined. These indicators are concrete, observable, and measurable
teacher behaviors, actions, habits, actions, routines, and practices known to create,
facilitate, and support enhanced student learning.
The domains, strands, and indicators may be characterized in terms of the following
dimensions:
4.4.1
Nature/quality: This dimension refers to question, “How well are the essential
qualities or critical features demonstrated/observed in the positive teacher
practices?”
4.4.2
Frequency, consistency and appropriateness: This dimension refers to the
questions, “How often is the ideal teaching practice demonstrated?”, “Is the
demonstration appropriate to the particular teacher-learning process?”, and
“Is the teacher consistent in demonstrating this ideal?”
4.4.3
Self-awareness: This dimension refers to the question, “Is the teacher aware
or mindful of the premises, rationale, nature, and effects of the demonstrated
teacher-learning process?”
4.5
The Domains
In this section, each of the seven domains is discussed.
For each domain, the
conceptual description of the domain is provided, and strands comprised are defined.
The specific indicators under each strand and domain can be seen in Annex A.
TEDP Report, page 35
4.5.1
Domain 1: Social Regard for Learning
The domain of Social Regard for Learning focuses on the ideal that teachers serve
as positive and powerful role models of the values of the pursuit of learning and of
the effort to learn, and that the teachers actions, statements, and different types of
social interactions with students exemplify this ideal. There is only one strand under
Domain 1:

Acts as a positive role model for students
4.5.2
Domain 2: Learning Environment
The domain of Learning Environment focuses on importance of providing for a social
and physical environment within which all students, regardless of their individual
differences in learning, can engage the different learning activities and work towards
attaining high standards of learning. There are four strands under Domain 2:

Creates an environment that promotes fairness

Makes the physical environment safe and conducive to learning

Communicates higher learning expectations to each learner

Establishes and maintains consistent standards of learners’ behavior
4.5.3
Domain 3: Diversity of Learners
The domain of Diversity of Learners emphasizes the ideal that teachers can facilitate
the learning process in diverse types of learners, by first recognizing and respecting
individual differences, then using knowledge about students’ differences to design
diverse sets of learning activities to ensure that all students can attain appropriate
learning goals. There are two strands under Domain 3:
TEDP Report, page 36

Is familiar with learners’ background knowledge and experiences

Demonstrates concern for holistic development of learners
4.5.4
Domain 4: Curriculum
The domain of Curriculum refers to all elements of the teaching-learning process that
work in convergence to help students attain high standards of learning and
understanding of the curricular goals and objectives. These elements include the
teacher’s knowledge of subject matter, teaching-learning approaches and activities,
instructional materials and learning resources. There are four strands in Domain 4:

Demonstrates mastery of the subject

Communicates clear learning goals that are appropriate for learners

Makes good use of allotted instructional time

Selects teaching methods, learning activities and instructional materials or
resources appropriate to learners and aligned to the objectives of the lesson
4.5.5
Domain 5: Planning, Assessing and Reporting
The domain of Planning, Assessing and Reporting refers to the aligned use of
assessment and planning activities to ensure that the teaching-learning activities are
maximally appropriate to the students’ current knowledge and learning levels. In
particular, the domain focuses on the use of assessment data to plan and revise
teaching-learning plans, as well as the integration of formative assessment
procedures in the plan and implementation of teaching-learning activities. There are
three strands under Domain 5:

Communicates promptly and clearly to learners, parents, and superiors about
the progress of learners
TEDP Report, page 37

Develops and uses a variety of appropriate assessment strategies to monitor
and evaluate learning

Monitors regularly and provides feedback on learners’ understanding of
content
4.5.6
Domain 6: Community Linkages
The domain of Community Linkages focuses on the ideal that school activities are
meaningfully linked to the experiences and aspirations of the students in their homes
and communities.
Thus the domain focuses on teachers’ efforts directed at
strengthening the links between school and community activities, particularly as
these links help in the attainment of the curricular objectives. There is only one
strand under Domain 6:

Establishes learning environments that respond to the aspirations of the
community
4.5.7
Domain 7: Personal Growth and Professional Development
The domain of Personal Growth and Professional Development emphasizes the
ideal that teachers value having a high personal regard, concern for professional
development, and continuous improvement as teachers.
There are three strands under Domain 7:

Takes pride in the nobility of teaching as a profession

Builds professional links with colleagues to enrich teaching practice

Reflects on the extent of the attainment of learning goals
TEDP Report, page 38
4.6
Integrating the Domains
With the long list of standards under each of the seven domains, it might be tempting
to treat the NCBTS domains as a checklist of independent competencies. However,
it should be underscored that the seven domains are closely connected to each other
in very meaningful ways, and that the seven domains are best understood a
constituting an integrated whole.
To understand how the seven domains comprise an integrated whole, it would help
to see the seven domains as falling under two broad categories. The middle domains
2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 represent standards referring to “The Teacher as Facilitator of
Learning,” whereas the two outer domains 1 and 7 represent standards referring to
“The Teacher as Learner.” The middle domains can further be divided into two subcategories.
The innermost domains 3, 4, and 5 represent the specific teacher
practices related to the technical aspects of the teaching-learning processes,
whereas the other domains 2 and 6 represent the specific teacher practices that
embed the learning process in appropriate contexts.
The integration of the seven domains will be discussed from the inside going out. At
the center of the series of domains are the technical aspects of the teaching-learning
process. In a manner of speaking, they refer to the nuts-and-bolts of good teaching.
The domains of The Diversity of Learners (3), Curriculum (4), and Planning,
Assessing, and Reporting (5) refer to what may be called good teaching strategies,
and are very closely related to each other. In particular, a close reading of the
strands and indicators in the three domains indicate an emphasis on the importance
of planning and aligning the teaching-learning activities with the curricular objectives,
the characteristics of the learner, and the assessment and feedback mechanisms.
TEDP Report, page 39
Indeed, the most advanced of the indicators listed in the three domains necessarily
refer to the other two domains. The close connections between Domains 3, 4 and 5
is an expression of first two important concepts in the new paradigm on teaching
(see top right portion of Table 2) of the NCBTS.
The third important concept in the new paradigm on teaching (see middle right
portion of Table 2) of the NCBTS explains the links between the next to outer
domains: The Learning Environment (2) and Community Linkages (6).
The two
domains refer to the teaching practices that attempt to situate or at least link the
teaching-learning process to appropriate contexts: the immediate physical,
psychological and social context of the classroom, and the larger socio-cultural,
economic, political, and historical context of the community.
In this regard, it is
appropriate to conceive of Domains 2 and 6 as providing the context for Domains 3,
4, and 5. Domains 2 and 6, can either constrain or expand the options for Domains
3, 4, and 5. Together, Domains 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 represent the full range of teacher
practices that relate to effectively facilitating learning.
On the other hand, the two outermost domains represent the important teacher
practices that relate to the teacher as learner. Domain 1 represents the ideal that the
teacher serves as a model of all the positive values associated with learning, and
Domain 7 represents the behaviors that demonstrate the teachers actual aspirations
to continue learning as a professional teacher. Indeed, the strands and indicators
under Domains 1 and 7 are essentially interconnected. But, these two domains
should not be construed as being distinct and separate from those five domains
related to facilitating learning. Instead, the teachers’ personal demonstration of the
values and activities of learning make the teachers more credible and effective
TEDP Report, page 40
facilitators of learning in students.
More important, consistent with the
developmental orientation of the NCBTS (see bottom right portion of Table 2),
Domains 1 and 7 can be the domains that fuel and drive teacher development in the
other five domains.
DOMAIN 1: SOCIAL
REGARD FOR LEARNING
DOMAIN 2: THE LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT
DOMAIN 3: THE DIVERSITY
OF LEARNERS
DOMAIN 4: CURRICULUM
DOMAIN 5: PLANNING,
ASSESSING & REPORTING
DOMAIN 6: COMMUNITY
LINKAGES
DOMAIN 7: PERSONAL
GROWTH & PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the seven integrated domains of the NCBTS.
The integration of the seven domains can thus be summarized in the schematic
representation in Figure 3. The darker portions in the middle of the figure represent
the teaching standards related to the teacher as facilitator of learning. The darkest
innermost domains represent the technical aspects of the teaching-learning
processes. The light shaded portions around the darker middle portions represent
TEDP Report, page 41
the attempts to embed the teaching-learning processes in appropriate contexts, and
thus provide the larger environment for these processes. Finally, the unshaded outer
portions represent the teacher standards related to teacher as learner, which provide
the personal drive and motivation for developments in the inner portions.
4.7
Using the NCBTS for Teacher Development
As indicated in earlier discussions, the NCBTS should be applied to all teacher
development activities by all stakeholders concerned with improving teacher quality.
The utilization of the NCBTS can be extended over four broad areas: (a) to help
individual teachers and groups of teachers in their personal professional
development efforts, (b) to guide the design and implementation of teacher education
programs, (c) to guide selection, retention, and promotion policies related to teacher
development, and (d) to guide the planning of and allocation of resources for teacher
development programs and activities. The application in these four broad areas will
be undertaken by different agencies (e.g., the DepEd Central, Regional, Divisional
offices and schools, CHED, teacher education institutions, PRC, award giving
bodies, etc.). The specific programs and plans of action, including policy reforms,
related to the application of the NCBTS will be discussed in the next major sections,
following the framework of the Teacher Development Map.
In this section, what needs to be emphasized are two important action points related
to the adoption of the NCBTS and building advocacy on the principles and uses of
the NCBTS.
TEDP Report, page 42
4.7.1
The NCBTS as the Common Framework for All Teacher Development
Programs
The NCBTS was developed through a long series of discussions, consultative, and
validation meetings involving representatives from the different levels of the DepEd
bureaucracy, from almost all the regions of the country, from the CHED, TEIs, the
PRC, the Teacher Education Council (TEC), academe, associations of teachers,
principals, directors, NGOs, Civil Service Commission, NEDA, among others. At this
point, what is required is an explicit action on the part of the key agencies, primarily
the DepEd, the CHED, the PRC, and the TEC to adopt the NCBTS framework.
Note however, that although the NCBTS is a national framework, it is defined in such
a way that it is still possible for different stakeholders to adapt the framework in ways
that are more suited to their goals and contexts. In this regard, some variants of the
NCBTS have already been developed. For example, for many Regional units of the
DepEd, representatives of teachers, master teachers, school heads, principals,
supervisors, ALS coordinators, Superintendents of Schools, Regional Planning
Officers, and Regional Directors have come together to work on Regional
Competency Based Teacher Standards.
These Regional Competency-Based
Teacher Standards (or RCBTS) have been developed for Regions 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 5,
6, 7, 8, 10, CARAGA, CAR, and NCR and adhere to the same domains and strands,
but vary in terms of some specific indicators (see Annexes C to O).
Similarly representatives from CHED, TEIs, PRC, TEC, and other stakeholders in the
pre-service teacher education system have also come together in a series of
consultative workshops to develop, the CBTS for the Pre-Service Teacher Education
System (See Annex B). Again, this Pre-Service CBTS works within the general
TEDP Report, page 43
structure of the NCBTS but includes minor changes in the strands and indicators.
These variations emphasize the point that the NCBTS is not a rigid and lifeless
document that is intended to be implemented strictly by all stakeholders in all
contexts. Instead, the NCBTS is a living framework which has an essential core but
that can be adapted to suit the specific realities, goals, and aspirations of teachers
and other stakeholders of the education community in various contexts.
The specific variations on the NCBTS for different sectors should also be officially
adopted and recognized by the appropriate agencies.
But most important, the
DepEd and all the partner agencies in the reform should also adopt the underlying
new paradigm of teaching that underlies the NCBTS. It should be emphasized that
all government agencies that deal with the teacher should fully appreciate the status
of the teacher as a knowledge-professional who is responsible and reflective about
the teaching practice and learning outcomes. In adopting this paradigm, educational
agencies should move away from the view that teachers are mere subordinates in
the educational bureaucracy, and embrace the view of empowered teachers who are
powerful agents of learning and change in the educational system.
Proposed Action #1:
Joint interagency resolution and/or order adopting the NCBTS, its
underlying paradigm of teaching, and its specific adaptations, as guiding
framework for all teacher development policies, programs, and activities,
and aligning existing policies, programs, and activities to the NCBTS.
TEDP Report, page 44
4.7.2
Public Information and Advocacy for the NCBTS
The effectiveness of the NCBTS as a unifying framework and driving force for
teacher development in the Philippines largely depends on the extent to which the
various stakeholders understand and appreciate the philosophy, principles,
concepts, and applications of the NCBTS. In this regard, there is an urgent need to
undertake public information and advocacy campaigns on the NCBTS for the various
concerned stakeholders. Such campaigns should aim to ensure that all stakeholders
develop a deep conceptual understanding of the NCBTS as a tool for professional
development of teachers, enough that they can appropriately apply the NCBTS
towards the attainment of their various professional development objectives.
It is also important that such campaigns aim to surface and then correct
misperceptions and misconceptions that stakeholders might have about the NCBTS
(e.g., that it’s a new bureaucratic requirement that will be used as the performance
appraisal instrument, or that it will be used to fire incompetent teachers, etc.)
Proposed Action #2:
2a: Campaign for classroom teachers to understand the philosophy,
contents, and applications of the NCBTS, particularly as a personal
development guide. This campaign should be initiated by the
Principals/Schoolheads at their own levels, with support from the
respective Division and Regional Offices of the DepEd.
/continued
TEDP Report, page 45
Proposed Action #2 (continued)
2b: Orientation on the philosophy, contents, and applications of the
NCBTS for the following subgroups:

DepEd Division, Regional, and pertinent Central Officials and staff
members;

CHED Division, Regional, and pertinent Central Officials and staff
members;

Teacher education institutions

The Board of Professional Teachers, PRC

External stakeholders: associations of education professionals, NGOs,
private foundations,

Parents, media, and the general public.
2c: Development and dissemination of orientation materials on the
philosophy, contents, and applications of the NCBTS.
5
REFORMING RECRUITMENT, ADMISSION AND
RETENTION POLICIES OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHER
EDUCATION
The Teacher Development Map begins with the recruitment and admission of high
schools students into the pre-service teacher education programs of the TEIs. It is
important that even at the earliest stages of the teacher development cycle, there are
TEDP Report, page 46
already attempts to apply the relevant competency-based teacher standards in the
recruitment and selection of prospective pre-service teachers. In this regard, some
sectors have advocated the application of strict admission requirements for teacher
education programs.
This sentiment is partly based on observations that the
academic credential of teacher education applicants and students are lower
compared to applicants in other higher education courses. It has been noted that
many TEIs do not have rigorous admission policies, and in some cases, an open
admission policy is used in teacher education. Research has indicated that schools
that have a systematic admissions policy that use a standardized admissions test
tend to perform better in the national LET.
The use of strict admission policies and admissions tests for pre-service teacher
education programs could be effective in preventing highly incapable applicants from
entering the pre-service system.
However, such a policy also has its attendant
problems. First, the academic preparation of students after high school is highly
variable because of the highly uneven quality of curricular and instructional programs
in the different high schools all over the country. A student who cannot demonstrate
adequate academic credentials or performance at the point of application may be
unable to do so not because of their own lack of ability or motivation, but because of
the impoverished situation of her high school. Second, a strict admissions policy
might be prematurely ending a prospective teacher’s career. It should be noted that
most applicants to teacher education programs are aged 16 to 17 years and are not
yet fully developed intellectually and emotionally.
Therefore, it might be
unreasonable to make final judgments about one’s potential to become a teacher
when the applicant is still quite young.
TEDP Report, page 47
A viable policy alternative is to implement a systematic admission policy that involves
an admissions test of basic communication, quantitative skills, and academic
achievement. The results of the admissions test can be combined with other criteria
like high school grades, extra curricular activities, interview, recommendations, and
other test results and requirements. TEIs shall then use “reasonable” cut-off scores
for all criteria for admission. The admission policy can also involve a system of
admitting less qualified students under probation, with the proviso that they must
maintain certain minimum academic performance standards to stay in the program.
Proposed Action #3:
Amend CHED Memo Order 30 (s. 2004) to include the following provisions:
(a) All teacher education institutions shall adopt a selective admission
policy, which is based in part on a standardized test for communication
skills in English and Filipino, quantitative skills, and general academic
achievement.
(b) All teacher education institutions shall adopt a standardized
admissions test through either of the following options:

Developing their own TEI’s standardized admissions test

Developing a common standardized admission test within a network or
consortium of TEIs

Contracting the standardized admissions test of private testing
companies or another college or university
/continued
Proposed Action #3 (continued):
TEDP Report, page 48
(a) The admissions policy should set definite minimum requirements for
the various admission criteria. Students who meet all minimum
requirements shall be directly admitted into the program.
(b) Students who do not meet certain minimum requirements, but comply
with others may be admitted on probationary status. However, these
students mush meet certain minimum academic performance
requirements after the first year of study before they can proceed in the
teacher education program.
In support of such a policy, the CHED and the TEIs should set up mechanisms to
allow all TEIs in the country to develop and or access a reliable and valid
standardized test to assess the academic qualification of the applicants to the preservice teacher education program. In recent years, there was an attempt to develop
a National Admissions Test for Teacher Education. However, a feasibility analysis of
such a scheme revealed many problems related to the implementation. The most
viable options involve individual schools to adopt their own admissions test, or
perhaps share admissions tests among consortia or networks of TEIs.
6
ALIGNING THE PRE-SERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION
CURRICULUM WITH THE NCBTS
The pre-service teacher education curriculum was revised in 2004 and the policies
and standards are articulated in CHED Memo 30 (s. 2004). The key revisions in the
new pre-service teacher education curriculum seem to be closely aligned with the
TEDP Report, page 49
NCBTS. However, there is still a need to ensure that all TEIs and students who are
complying with the policies and standards of CHED Memo 30 are mindful of the
alignments between the two documents.
More important, TEIs should aim to
develop certain minimum teacher competencies among all their graduates. The best
way to appreciate the alignment between the CHED Memo 30 and the NCBTS is that
the CHED Memo 30 articulates the general philosophy and structure of the
curriculum, and the NCBTS articulates the concrete indicators of teacher standards
that the curriculum should develop in pre-service teachers. In other words, the TEIs
should ensure that all pre-service teachers who graduate under the pre-service
teacher education curriculum can demonstrate the teacher standards articulated in
the pre-service version of the NCBTS (see Annex B).
Proposed Action #4:
Amend CHED Memo Order 30 (s. 2004) to include the pre-service NCBTS
indicators (see Annex B) as the explicit competency targets curriculum.
7
DEVELOPING EFFECTIVES MECHANISMS FOR THE
EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING COMPONENT OF PRESERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
One of the key reforms in the new pre-service teacher education curriculum involves
the expansion and intensification of the experiential learning component of the
curriculum.
In the previous curriculum, the experiential learning component was
limited to the practice teaching course at the end of the curriculum. In the new
TEDP Report, page 50
curriculum, students begin the experiential component by engaging in field
observation in actual classrooms as early as the third term/semester of the
curriculum. The field observation gradually intensifies as the pre-service teacher
gains professional knowledge and can thus be more involved in different instructional
activities in actual classrooms.
The experiential component culminates in the
practice teaching in the pre-service teacher’s senior year. The experiential learning
of the pre-service teacher is spread over three years, and is designed to allow the
pre-service teacher to apply, validate, and reflect on the technical knowledge and
skills in the curriculum in a calibrated and sustained manner.
The intensification of the experiential component also requires a more intensive
cooperation between the TEIs and the DepEd’s public schools which will serve as
the sites for the pre-service teachers’ experiential learning.
This development
underscores the important role of the DepEd, of public elementary and secondary
schools, and of basic education teachers in the pre-service teacher education
system. However, this new role of the DepEd needs to be engaged with much care,
as there is a need to ensure that the normal operations of the elementary and
secondary schools are not adversely affected by the field study experience of preservice teachers. At the same time, there is a need to ensure that the field study
experience is undertaken in ways that effectively realize the curricular objectives of
the TEIs. The effective implementation of the experiential learning component and
the successful attainment of the curricular objectives are dependent on the quality of
the cooperative arrangements set between TEIs and cooperating public schools.
In this regard, the DepEd and CHED should ensure that such cooperative
arrangements between public schools and TEIs are set and implemented for the
TEDP Report, page 51
mutual benefit of both parties.
Such arrangements are perhaps best set at the
DepEd Division level and at the level of networks of geographically proximate TEIs
on the part of CHED. However, it is also possible that the Regional offices play a
coordinating role in ensuring that the specific agreement fostered between Division
Offices and TEIs is aligned with the regional human resource development needs.
Moreover, the DepED regional offices can also align such agreements to serve other
goals such as tapping the expertise and resources in the Regional TEIs for the inservice education for teachers in the public schools (see Proposed Action #15).
Proposed Action #5:
The DepEd and the CHED shall issue a joint memo articulating the
guidelines for the deployment of pre-service teachers in public schools in
relation to the implementation of the experiential learning courses in
CHED Memo Order 30 (s. 2004). The joint order shall provisions on:
(a) The roles of the DepEd and CHED Regional Offices in articulating the
general human resource requirements of basic education schools in
the region, and the general capacities of the TEIs in the region to
address these requirements.
/continued
Proposed Action #5 (continued):
TEDP Report, page 52
(b) The roles of the DepEd Division Offices and networks/consortia of TEIs
in defining the parameters of Memoranda-of-Agreements governing
the implementation of experiential learning courses in public schools.
(c) The responsibilities of the cooperating public school, the school
head/principal, the cooperating teacher, and other members of the
school’s teaching/non-teaching staff who may be involved in the
implementation of the experiential learning courses.
(d) The responsibilities of the TEI, the supervising faculty member, the
pre-service student, and all other members of the TEI’s teaching/nonteaching staff who may be involved in the implementation of the
experiential learning courses
(e) The systems of monitoring and feedback that would allow all parties
involved to assess and to ensure the effective implementation of the
cooperative activities.
(f) All other provisions that would to ensure the effective implementation
of the cooperative activities and the sustained wellbeing of all parties
involved in the cooperation.
(g) The preparation and publication of a Manual for Experiential Learning
Courses in Public Schools to be used by the cooperating schools and
the TEIs for the smooth implementation of the cooperation.
TEDP Report, page 53
8
CAPACITY BUILDING FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS
Research conducted by the CHED and other scholarly/professional agencies have
pointed to clear limitations in the capacities of many TEIs to implement the upgraded
requirements in the new pre-service teacher education curriculum. The weaknesses
relate to many different aspects, including the following:
(a) TEI faculty members’ awareness and understanding of the contemporary
theories related to learning and human development, teaching, curriculum,
assessment of student learning, and the social dimensions of learning;
(b) TEI
faculty
members’
awareness,
understanding,
and
application
of
contemporary approaches/strategies in teaching, designing learning activities,
curriculum development, assessing student learning, development and use of
educational
technologies,
supervision
students’
experiential
learning,
developmental reading, among others;
(c) TEI faculty members’ knowledge and use of contemporary approaches/strategies
in teaching and assessment related to the various professional teacher education
courses;
(d) TEI
faculty
members’
knowledge
and
skills
related
to
the
various
major/specialization areas, particularly in the sciences and mathematics;
(e) Availability of and access to contemporary books, references, journals, and other
resource materials related to teacher education;
(f) General capacity of the TEI to engage in sustained developmental efforts to
ensure that the programs and faculty can continuously adapt to the fast changing
requirements in the field of teacher education.
TEDP Report, page 54
After the implementation of the CHED Memo 30, the CHED has undertaken, albeit in
a very limited scale, capacity building activities intended to initiate the long process
of improving the knowledge and skills of TEI faculty members all over the country.
The capacity building efforts have been sustained to a more intensive degree by
organizations of TEIs (e.g., the PAFTE and SUCTEA) and individual TEIs, but much
more intensive efforts are needed especially in the remote regions of the country.
These efforts should be programmatic and sustained over a long period of time, to
support the full and effective implementation of the new pre-service teacher
education curriculum and the attainment of the NCBTS indicators.
The capacity building program should focus on two streams of interventions: (a) for
the broad base of TEIs, and (b) for a select group of TEIs, perhaps the Centers of
Excellence and Centers of Development in Teacher Education. The first stream of
interventions should involve a strategy that will reach-out to the thousands of TEI
faculty members, especially to those in far and remote TEIs, and help them improve
capacities in the delivery of the professional education courses. Such programs
should be coordinated and supported by the CHED through its Centers of Excellence
programs. That is, a select group of TEIs of fairly advanced capabilities shall be
mandated to undertake such programs for other less capable TEIs. The CHED
should ensure that the programs undertaken are not purely informational (e.g., short
term seminars, conferences with lectures, etc.), as these have been shown to be
ineffective in having an impact on practices of TEI faculty. Instead the CHED should
ensure that the programs are conceptualized to be intensive (over longer periods of
time), interactive, hands-on problem-oriented, practice-oriented, and involve deep
discussions on the problems of current practices in teaching and teacher education.
TEDP Report, page 55
The CHED should also ensure that the programs are focused on areas of
competency that are directly supportive of developing and implementing pre-service
teacher education programs that will nurture the NCBTS indicators among preservice students – particularly those that relate to the helping pre-service teachers
develop the knowledge and skills related to the inner-core of the NCBTS related to
teacher competencies in facilitating learning (Domains 2 to 7).
Proposed Action #6:
The CHED should develop a medium-term plan for improving the
capacities of TEIs, especially of TEI faculty, with a view of systematically
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the pre-service system. This
plan should involve parallel programs that must involve the following:

Intensive, interactive, hands-on, problem-oriented in-service capacity
building programs for TEI faculty members were faculty members of TEI
experience and create new syllabi, learning resource materials, designs
for learning experiences for pre-service teachers.
Such programs can be implemented through the mandate of the Centers
of Excellence in Teacher Education (see Proposed Action #7).
In-service faculty development programs that are purely informational
should not be supported, as there is a need to ensure that new information
on teacher education is understood in practice and in context.
TEDP Report, page 56
The second stream of interventions should be directed at a select group of TEIs who
shall take the lead in implementing the capacity building programs for other TEIs
(and also for the in-service programs of the DepEd). At present, the CHED and the
Teacher Education Council (TEC) have a program of recognizing Centers of
Excellence and Centers of Development in Teacher Education. The program should
ensure that the institutions selected have characteristics and capabilities that will
allow them to effectively reach-out to the other TEIs and help the latter attain higher
levels of competence, efficiency, and effectiveness in helping pre-service students
attain the NCBTS indicators (see Proposed Action #6).
The second stream of interventions should be directed at further improving the
capacities of the TEIs in areas where they will be leading. It should be noted that
even the most developed TEIs in the country are still weak in many key areas (e.g.,
contemporary approaches to curriculum design, instruction, and assessment of
student learning; cognitive and socio-cultural theories of learning; developmental
reading; educational technology; English language education; science and
mathematics education, etc.).
In this regard, CHED should have two related
interventions. First, a highly focused program to support attainment of advanced
knowledge and skills in priority areas of development through graduate education in
local and international universities (doctoral level).
Second, a highly focused
program to enhance research and innovations in teacher education that should lead
to further improvements in the pre-service teacher education curriculum through
grants-in-aid and other existing research development programs as provided for in
the CHED National Higher Education Research Agenda.
TEDP Report, page 57
Proposed Action #7:
The CHED should identify the second batch of Centers of Excellence for
Teacher Education and mandate these institutions to undertake programs
specified in Proposed Action #6. Moreover, the CHED should aim to
further develop the capacities of the faculty of these Centers of Excellence
through two related programs:

Support for graduate studies on areas that are directly supportive of
capacity building in the areas of weakness (e.g., contemporary
approaches to curriculum design and instruction; cognitive and sociocultural theories of learning; developmental reading; educational
technology; English language education; science and mathematics
education), especially in assessment of student learning (educational
measurement) and developmental reading, in accredited graduate schools
of education in the country or abroad. Support should NOT be given for
graduate studies in peripheral and even oversubscribed areas (e.g.,
educational administration and management; guidance and counseling).

for long-term research and development programs that are particularly
focused on priority-problems of teacher development and that would
generate innovative practices and new theories and concepts that would
support the further enhancement of teachers competencies defined in the
NCBTS.
TEDP Report, page 58
One of the most apparent limiting factors in the development of Philippine TEIs is the
lack of easy access to the most recent literature on theory, research, and practices in
teacher education in different parts of the world, most especially from countries with
highly effective teacher education systems. This trend has insulated many faculties
of TEIs from the fast changing developments in the various sub-fields of teacher
education, and has perpetuated some very archaic practices and beliefs regarding
teacher development in general, and regarding pre-service teacher education, in
particular. This problem can be addressed by embarking on an aggressive library
and resource development program for teacher education. Such a resource needs
to be developed strategically and efficiently, and thus precludes the possibility of
supporting library and development in all TEIs. Instead, a development program
should be focussed on creating nodes or hubs of teacher education resource
materials which may be actual physical or virtual (on-line) libraries and resource
centers situated in strategically located institutions (perhaps the Centers of
Excellence) but that ensures easy access to faculty members in a wide-range of
geographically proximate TEIs.
Proposed Action #8:
Embark on a library and resource development program for Teacher
Education Institutions to allow easy and efficient access to most recent
global developments in theory, research and practice in teacher
education.
TEDP Report, page 59
9
RATIONALIZATION AND STRONGER MONITORING
TEACHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
Efforts to improve the capacities of TEIs need to be accompanied with strong and
deliberate efforts to rationalize the distribution of TEIs in the country. There are now
over 800 higher education institutions in the country that produce over 300,000
teacher education graduate every year. Of this total number of graduates, only 20%
to 30% pass the LET annually, and less than 10,000 can be absorbed in the public
and private elementary and high schools all over the country. Yet there are acute
shortages of qualified teachers in certain subject areas (e.g., math, the sciences),
and in some of the remote divisions of schools in the country.
There is a clear need to more aggressively regulate this sector as it has very obvious
internal inefficiencies, not to mention the large pockets of ineffectiveness. Research
undertaken by the Science Education Institute indicates that over 60% of teacher
education graduate who pass the LET come from only about 30 TEIs. Mindful of the
fact that the CHED has had problems implementing it’s mandate to close down
ineffective degree programs, the strategies that should be adopted in rationalizing
the pre-service teacher education should be multi-pronged and systematic.
One of the most logical policy actions would be a total moratorium on new teacher
education programs, except in areas of shortage (e.g., math, science). Thus, no new
permits shall be issued to offer programs in BEEd and BSEd. Such a moratorium
should be accompanied with a very strict implementation of the requirements for
granting renewal of government permits and granting government recognition to
newly opened teacher education programs.
TEDP Report, page 60
The new pre-service curriculum implemented by CHED (Memo 30, s. 2004) already
articulates very high standards for the curriculum.
Compliance with the high
curriculum requirement can be the means by which CHED regulates the pre-service
sector, as those institutions which would have difficulty complying with the high
standards would find it more difficult to sustain their operations. Of course, the
existence of high standards can only be a force of regulation if the CHED has an
efficient mechanism of monitoring compliance among the various TEIs.
Presently, the large number of TEIs does not allow for an effective nor efficient
centralized mechanism for monitoring TEIs.
The Regional Offices of CHED are
presently deputized to undertake monitoring of TEIs in their jurisdiction, but there
seems to be inconsistency in the standards of monitoring across the regions. The
bottom line is that the CHED needs to develop more effective systems for ensuring
the TEIs are complying with the higher standards of pre-service teacher education.
Such a system might need to be rationalized so that it utilizes a system that predicts
likelihood of non-compliance and focuses monitoring efforts and resources to those
schools that have low likelihood of compliance.
The rationalization efforts should also be accompanied with attempts to improve the
market information on outcomes of TEIs. High school graduates who are thinking of
entering the pre-service teacher education system and their parents should be
informed about the quality of the programs of the TEIs they are considering, and the
likelihood of their passing government licensure and hiring requirements.
Such
information should guide their decisions on where to enroll, and would hopefully
ensure the viability of high performing schools while making it more difficult for low
performing schools to maintain their sustainability and viability.
TEDP Report, page 61
These attempts can involve varied strategies such as (a) wide-spread dissemination
of performance of TEIs in licensure examinations, (b) wide-spread dissemination of
list accredited and non-accredited TEIs, (c) controlling the allocation of government
scholarships to students to enroll only in high performing TEIs, and (d) coordinating
with the DepEd to provide preferential hiring for graduates of high performing TEIs.
Proposed Action #9:
The CHED should develop rationalize the distribution of TEIs in the
country in order to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the
pre-service teacher education sector. The efforts to rationalize shall
involve the following proposed actions:

Immediate moratorium on opening of new teacher education programs,
expect in areas of very acute shortage (e.g., math and science
majors).

Strict implementation of requirements for renewal of permits and
granting of government recognition to newly opened teacher education
programs.

Creation of an effective and rationale monitoring of compliance with the
high standards defined in CHED Memo 30 (s. 2004).

Wide-spread public dissemination on the performance and quality of
TEIs over a defined period (LET performance, accreditation over the
past five years or more).
/continued
TEDP Report, page 62
Proposed Action #7 (continued):

Rationalization of allocation of scholarships for teacher education.

Coordination with DepEd for preferential hiring of TEIs from high
performing TEIs.
10
STRENGTHENING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PRESERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION CURRICULUM
At present, there are three major pathways for teacher training in the Philippines:
(a)
A four-year BEED or BSED program that trains teachers for employment
in elementary schools or subject-specific content areas in secondary
schools respectively.
The pathway is mostly regulated by the CHED
through its policies and standards for the curricula for these programs; but
there are autonomous colleges and universities (state, local-government
administered) that offer similar programs.
(b)
Graduates with a content-based degree who undertake a shorter teacher
education program (usually of one to two years) that recognizes prior
learning and experience (the so-called PGCE track). This pathway is
offered mostly by teacher education institutions, but the requirements of
the pathway are set by the Professional Regulatory Commission.
(c)
Graduates with experience in the work force in various fields and wishing
to retrain as teachers who undertake a similar program to that described
in (b) above. This pathway is administered in the same way as (b).
TEDP Report, page 63
Research on the teachers who go through the three pathways is equivocal about
which option is best.
However, each pathway has clear advantages and
disadvantages. For example, graduates of pathway (a) are found to have stronger
skills related to basic teaching processes such as lesson planning, classroom
management, etc. On the other hand the graduates of pathways (b) and (c) are
found to be have better communication skills, be more open to innovative
approaches, and when the prior degree or experience is relevant, stronger subject
specialization knowledge. More important, the differences between these different
graduates are no longer easy to discern after they have three or more years of actual
teaching experience.
This finding agrees with the experiences from other countries that show that it is best
to foster a range of options for the training of teachers since each track yields
valuable recruits that have their own particular qualities because they each come
from different backgrounds. It also means that no potentially valuable future teacher
is excluded by the entrance requirements.
However, steps should be taken to strengthen each pathway to ensure that there is
optimal attainment of the NCBTS competency indicators as early in the professional
development phase as possible. The steps to strengthen the first pathway have
been discussed in the preceding sections, as the previous suggestions address the
weaknesses and causes of these weaknesses in the graduates of the first pathway.
Some of the steps involved in strengthening the second and third pathways may
include streamlining the options in the Post Graduate Certificate Education (PGCE)
to contain the most relevant professional education courses, and to include a
stronger experiential component.
TEDP Report, page 64
Finally, as acknowledgement of the value of the PGCE [i.e., pathways (b) and (c)],
the DepEd should give equal preference to graduates of the PGCE and the BEEd
and BSEd. That is instead, of looking at the type of degree the applicant has, the
DepEd should look at the competencies demonstrated by the applicant regardless of
how these competencies were attained.
Proposed Action #10:
The alternatives to becoming a qualified professional teacher should be
strengthened. In particular, the following actions can be undertaken

The PGCE, as defined in the LET Law should be amended to align the
18 units required with the most important competencies at the
core/center of the NCBTS (Domains 2 to 6) and to add 12 units of
experiential learning courses.

The CHED should amend Memo Order 30 (s. 2004) to include the
policies and standards for the PGCE as will be provided for in the
amended LET Law. The amendment should specify the 18 units that
are required and the 12 units of experiential learning courses, with
provisions of giving advanced credit or equivalency for actual teaching
or related experiences for the experiential learning course.

The DepEd should give equal preference to graduates of BEEd,
BEED, and PGCE programs in selection, hiring, and promotion. This
principle should be articulated in all DepEd Memos and Orders that
relate to selection, hiring, and promotion
TEDP Report, page 65
11
REFORMING THE SYSTEM OF LICENSING AND
CERTIFICATION OF PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS
A major gateway in the Teacher Development Map is the Licensure Examination for
Teachers. Each year, the LET is administered and screens out more than half of the
graduates of TEIs and PGCE. However, there is a very clear divergence between
the current LET and the standards articulated in the NCBTS. The LET is curriculumbased; that is, the LET is developed in ways to check on whether the applicant has
mastered some of the key competencies defined in the curriculum and syllabi of the
pre-service teacher education system.
However, the range of competencies
assessed by the LET is rather narrow as it focuses only on the cognitive
competencies. Many of the critical competency standards that TEIs aim to develop
cannot be easily tested using the paper-and-pencil multiple-choice format used in the
LET.
Thus, more complex thinking and problem solving skills are typically not
assessed in the LET in an authentic or appropriate manner.
Moreover, there are concerns about the appropriateness of the scoring procedures
for determining LET passers. Although the weights of the different parts of the LET
are specified (e.g., for the General Education Courses, Professional Education
Courses, and Specialization Courses), the passing rate is based on the total exam
score. Thus, it is possible for scores in one part to compensate for extremely low
scores in another. For example, a student who has failed the Specialization test for
Mathematics, but obtained a very high score in the General Education test can still
pass the LET and be licensed as a professional teacher with a specialization in
Mathematics, depending on the passing score that is set by the LET Board.
TEDP Report, page 66
There have been public criticisms of the test design and test items used in the LET in
the past several years. The LET board has undertaken steps to addressed the
problems and has contracted the services of an independent pool of experts to
advise the board on test construction and to do evaluation of the LET exams. The
impact of such efforts seems to be extremely limited as complaints about the LET
exam still persist. There should be greater public accountability regarding the quality
of the LET exam, and thus the LET board should allow more independent testing
experts to examine completed tests to have a more detailed scrutiny of the validity of
the test. A very careful analysis of the LET is badly needed at this time when higher
standards of competencies are being articulated in the CHED curriculum and the
NCBTS. It is important to reveal other structural problems in the LET before the LET
is used to assess these higher competency standards.
Even without waiting for the results of such an intensive study of the LET, there is
already a very clear need to revamp and reform the LET to ensure that it assesses
for the most important competencies defined in the NCBTS. The simplest steps for
ensuring that this goal is attained involve improving the test validity of the LET. In
particular, in line with the higher competency standards defined in CHED Memo
Order No. #30 (s. 2004) and the NCBTS, the test items should aim to assess for the
higher level cognitive knowledge and skills in the General Education, Professional
Education, and Specialization tests. Moreover, a criterion-referenced scoring system
should be adopted for each component of the test to ensure that all applicants meet
minimum cognitive competencies in all three areas.
The LET should also consider moving to a multi-level testing system where
applicants need to progress through increasingly complex and authentic tests before
TEDP Report, page 67
they can be licensed. The current LET can serve as the first level, which assess the
cognitive level knowledge of the applicants. Those who pass this first level, can then
proceed to the second level of knowledge that would involve authentic testing and
performance assessment procedures to determine whether the applicant has
acquired the higher level competencies indicated in the CHED curriculum and the
NCBTS.
Those who pass this second level can then proceed to a final level of
assessment, which will require them to demonstrate actual teaching competencies
through teaching demos and/or submission of teaching portfolios. Only those who
pass all levels of testing should be licensed as professional teachers.
The current LET law does not allow for the development and use of such a multilevel testing system. In this regard, an extensive review of the LET law should be
undertaken, so that the law can be amended to allow for a more effective system of
certifying qualified teacher professionals.
Proposed Action #11:
The system of licensing or certifying professional teachers should be
revamped to make it a more authentic system to assess whether teacher
applicants have acquired the desired competencies defined in the NCBTS.
In particular, the following actions can be undertaken

The LET Board shall endeavor to improve the quality of the test items
and overall design of the cognitive-focused LET.
/continued
TEDP Report, page 68
Proposed Action #11 (continued):

The LET Board shall adopt a criterion-referenced scoring system which
requires all applicants to meet minimum score requirements for each
section of the test and the overall test before they can pass the exam.

The LET Board shall allow public access to exams that have already
been administered to allow experts to intensively study the validity of
the licensure exam, and to find ways to improve the quality of the
licensure system of teachers, aligned with the indicators of the NCBTS.

The LET Law should be reviewed with the view of amending the law so
that a more authentic system of licensure or certification can be
adopted in line with the NCBTS. The review should be undertaken by
the Teacher Education Council with representatives from the DepEd,
CHED, TEIs, PRC, and independent educational assessment experts.

The amended LET law should provide for a multi-level testing system
to allow for progressive assessment of increasingly complex and
higher level competencies required for the certification of professional
teachers.
12
REVISING THE POLICIES FOR RECRUITMENT, HIRING,
AND DEPLOYMENT OF NEW TEACHERS
The current policies for the recruitment, evaluation, selection, and appointment of
teachers to public schools are articulated in the DepEd Order No. 17 (s. 2006). In
TEDP Report, page 69
this newly issued memo, the processes and criteria for evaluating teacher applicants
are defined. There is one important revision from the previous DepEd Order No. 16
(s. 2005), which relates to giving weights to the accreditation level of the school from
which the applicant graduated. More points were given to graduates of Level II and
Level III accredited schools. Those from the more progressive sector of the teacher
development community welcomed the old provision as it served as a signal to the
TEIs that the end-users or the clients of the TEIs are now discriminating in terms of
the types of programs which their graduates completed. The DepEd was in effect
saying that TEIs were not equal in quality and they wanted to give some preferential
treatment to those who graduated from programs that have been evaluated as
meeting higher standards.
However, such a policy was perceived as elitist and
unjust by other sectors who point out that those who enroll in non-accredited schools
often have no choice because of limited financial resources.
This argument is
fallacious since there are a good number of state colleges and universities with
accredited programs and that offer matriculation in teacher education for extremely
low tuition and fees, and even grant many scholarships. Nevertheless, this provision
was removed in the 2006 reiteration of the hiring policies. It is worth noting that
many schools that were upgrading their programs and facilities in order to be
accredited immediately stopped their applications for accreditation when DepEd
Order 17 (s. 2006) was issued. This underscores how DepEd’s hiring policies can
be a very potent factor in shaping development efforts on the part of TEIs.
One simple policy action can be to reinstate the criteria regarding the accreditation
level of the applicant’s school. Such a policy serves two purposes. First, it helps in
larger efforts to rationalize the distribution of TEIs in the country.
Second, the
accreditation policy serves as a very good proxy for assessing the quality of the pre-
TEDP Report, page 70
service learning experiences of the applicant. The weight given to this criteria can be
made lower than in previous articulations, but this weight can be progressively
increased as more TEIs have time to improve their programs and attain the
accreditation levels.
One critical problem with the current DepEd guidelines for hiring relate to the fact
that a significant proportion of the evaluation criteria is based on credential and not
competency. For example, 25% of the rating refers to a criterion called “Education”
which is operationalized as the students Grade Point Average. Although the GPA
can be a good indicator of different levels of educational achievement within a
school, the GPA becomes a weak indicator of the same when used across schools.
The use of the GPA as criterion does not seem to consider that different schools
ascribe different competency levels to grade levels. Thus, it is possible that two
students with the same level of achievement are given different marks by two
schools because one sets higher benchmarks of competency and performance than
the other. Similarly, two applicants who have the same reported GPA could actually
have different levels of educational achievement because they come from two
schools that set different benchmarks of competency. Indeed, this criterion might
even encourage some TEIs to “inflate” the grades of their students just to improve
their chances of hiring.
Similar issues can be raised with another credentials-based criterion referred to as
“Teaching Experience”, which is given a weight of 10%. Whereas it makes sense to
give weight to applicants who have more actual experience, the application of the
criteria does not consider the performance or competency levels demonstrated
during the periods of teaching experience. Thus, a new graduate with very strong
TEDP Report, page 71
potential and motivation, but with a no teaching experience will get only a fraction of
a point (.10 pts for every month of experience), while an applicant with ten years of
teaching experience will get 10 points (1 pt for every year) even if the last five of
those ten years all have documented “average” and “below average” performance
appraisals or evaluations.
These credentials-based criteria should be dropped or at leased drastically revised to
make clearer references to performance-based criteria and indicators aligned with
the NCBTS. For example, the criteria on “Education” can be supplemented with a
teaching portfolio which showcases the applicants best products and learning in the
pre-service teacher education program, and which may include written evaluations of
the supervising and cooperating teachers during the experiential learning courses.
The criteria on “Teaching Experience” may be used to benefit more experienced
applicants who have demonstrated teaching skills and documented positive teaching
evaluations; but the criteria should not be used to disadvantage new graduates.
There are also problems with the more competency-based criteria defined in the
guidelines. For example, the “Interview” criterion accounts for 35% of the rating and
refers to many competency-based sub-criteria: (a) personality – 20%, (b) potential –
20%, (c) teaching demonstration – 30%, (d) demonstrated specialized skills – 20%,
and (e) computer skills –10%. The first two criteria have indicators that are clearly
not aligned with the NCBTS (e.g., poise, alertness, stress tolerance, etc.), and which
may be expressed differently during an interview compared to during an actual
classroom activity.
TEDP Report, page 72
This problem with the competency-based indicators can be corrected by a simple
effort at aligning the current indicators with those listed in the NCBTS, and by using
clear competency-based criteria. In particular, the non-aligned indicators should be
dropped, and replaced by more suited and aligned indicators defined in the NCBTS.
There should also be deliberate attempts to strengthen the competency-based
indicators by improving the scoring system for these subcriteria (e.g., demonstration
teaching, specialized skills, and computer skills).
The introduction of a rational
scoring rubric based on the standards articulated in the NCBTS can minimize the
subjectivity in these important criteria.
This move will ensure that all hiring
committees will be applying the same high standards for the evaluation of the
competencies of the teacher applications. Finally, the scoring rubric will also serve a
very clear public articulation of the application of the NCBTS in the hiring procedures.
Proposed Action #12:
The DepEd shall revise its current guidelines for hiring new teachers in
public schools by aligning the evaluation and rating system with the
competency-based system and indicators of the NCBTS. In particular, the
DepEd shall design and implement a four- to five-year project to install a
new hiring systems for all new teachers hires, with the following features:

Only competency-based indicators shall be used;

Well-defined rubrics and criteria will be defined for the competencybased indicators that can be used across all school contexts; and
/continued
TEDP Report, page 73
Proposed Action #12 (continued):

Greater weight shall be given to the quality of the TEIs that provided
the preservice education of the applicant.
The adoption of these criterion features shall be gradually phased in,
particularly the last feature, to send a clear signal to all enrollees in TEIs
about the importance of choosing their preservice education program.
Assuming that hiring of teachers will still be done at the Division level, the
DepEd shall take steps to improve the technical and organizational
capacity of Division staff to assess competency-based criteria for
evaluating teaching potential and performance.
Finally, the DepEd should study how the governance structure of the
schools can be improved to ensure the proper involvement of important
stakeholders in the hiring process (e.g., schools, local government units,
etc.) and their proper use of competency-based criteria in hiring decisions.
13
MANDATORY INDUCTION PROGRAMS PERMANENCY
Presently, many Divisions of Schools are undertaking some form of induction
programs to improve the transition of new teachers into the public school setting.
Such induction programs typically take the form of orientation programs lasting from
one to three days and focus on administrative requirements for teaching. Recently,
the Teacher
Education Council (TEC)
developed a
more
intensive and
TEDP Report, page 74
comprehensive induction program for beginning teachers (less than three years in
the service) involving an extensive set of modules and mentoring activities intended
not only to orient the new teachers into the public school system, but to supplement
their pre-service teacher education.
The induction program targets a set of
competencies that are aligned with the NCBTS and has been pilot tested in selected
Divisions of Schools in different parts of the country. After the evaluation of the pilot
testing program, the induction modules shall be finalized and be ready for wide-scale
implementation in the school year starting in 2007. It is possible that in the near
future, graduates of the revised preservice teacher education curriculum with a
stronger experiential learning component would not require as intensive induction
program; at that point the induction program can be simplified.
The DepEd should endeavor to support this initiative of the TEC, particularly when it
is scaled up for use nationwide. However, should consider embedding a mandatory
induction program for all new teachers, which would comprise the probationary
period of all new teachers. The present practice of hiring new teachers in public
schools excludes a probationary period. Thus, unlike in the private sector where
teachers undergo a probationary period of a maximum of three years, teachers hired
in the public sector virtually become permanent as soon as they get their teacher
items. Private schools have a longer period to “induct” their teachers in the service
and a longer period to assess whether the teachers can truly grow into the teaching
service.
In contrast, public schools have very little opportunity to assess the
capacities of the new teachers they have hired, practically until retirement age.
In other countries, the probationary period of new teachers incorporates an extensive
induction program that involves intensive mentoring and peer coaching among the
TEDP Report, page 75
more senior teachers in the school. In some prefectures of Japan, for example, new
teachers are only given half the normal teaching load during their first year of
appointment. For the rest of the load, they undergo various activities as part of their
induction program.
Such activities involve short seminars, mentoring sessions,
group learning sessions, peer-coaching session, evaluation and microteaching
sessions, among other activities intended to help the new teachers contextualize and
apply their existing knowledge about teaching and to expand and deepen this
knowledge through various types of learning experiences in actual context. This
probationary-cum-induction period also serves as a very authentic means of
assessing the true potential, motivations, and capacities of new teachers.
The DepEd should take steps to study whether the department should be moving
towards a similar direction.
First, the DepEd should undertake a systematic
evaluation of the induction program developed by the TEC after it has been
implemented for at least three years. While these evaluation studies are going on,
the DepEd should also convene a Technical Working Group comprised of
representatives from groups of Principals/School Heads, teacher educators, planning
officers of the DepEd, and the Civil Service Commission, among others. The TWG
shall be tasked to study the possibility of requiring a probationary period for all new
teachers, and including a mandatory induction program within the probationary
period. The TWG should come up with concrete recommendations on possible ways
of improving the induction phase of new teachers, and using this phase as a stricter
and more authentic competency-based criteria for selecting teachers who will be
given permanent positions in the teaching service.
TEDP Report, page 76
Proposed Action #13:
The DepEd shall ensure support for the wider application of the induction
program modules being developed by the Teacher Education Council, and
after some years of application, the DepEd shall convene a Technical
Working Group to study the possibility of requiring a probationary period
with a required induction program for all new teachers in public schools.
14
ASSESSMENT OF TEACHER DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Proposed Action #2 highlights the need to build advocacy and understanding of the
competency-based teacher standards at the level of the schools, to allow teachers to
use the NCBTS in their personal reflections on their practice and in their professional
development plans and aspirations. Such an exercise can also serve as the means
of establishing baseline information on current teachers’ perceptions of their own
competencies in the seven domains. Such baseline information can provide very
direct and important information regarding the priority teacher development needs of
teachers in a school, from the perspective of the teachers themselves.
Previous research has indicated that most of the in-service teacher education
(INSET) programs are designed without consulting the teachers who participate in
the program. Supply-driven INSET programs provide training on areas which are not
needed or are irrelevant to the teachers actual professional development needs.
Thus, there is a need to systematically harness the outputs of the classroom
teachers’ personal reflections on the domains and indicators of the NCBTS to
determine the priority areas for teacher development for the different schools.
TEDP Report, page 77
Such an assessment of teacher development needs at the school level, from the
perspective of the teachers themselves, can provide very useful inputs for school
heads and principals in developing their School Improvement Plans (SIPS) under a
School-Based Management (SBM) system.
Thus the most logical office to
undertake this systematic assessment of teacher development needs is the principal
or school head, who shall ensure that such assessments will only be undertaken
after the teachers have had sufficient time to understand the NCBTS framework,
philosophy, domains, and indicators.
Proposed Action #14:
The Principals and School Heads in the different public elementary and
high schools shall undertake a systematic survey of their teachers’
perceived teacher development needs based on the indicators articulated
in the seven domains of the NCBTS, after sufficient time and effort has
been devoted to allowing the teachers to fully understand the philosophy
and contents of the NCBTS framework.
The school heads and principals shall develop a teacher-development
component for their School Improvement Plans (SIPs) that specify their
strategies for addressing the priority areas of teacher development for
their teachers.
/continued
Proposed Action #14: (continued)
TEDP Report, page 78
The DepEd Central Office shall issue an Administrative Order instructing
all school heads and principals about the above directive, after sufficient
time is devoted to allowing teachers to understand and appreciate the
NCBTS; and instructing the division officers to coordinate and provide
assistance in such an undertaking if necessary.
15
PROGRAM OF NEEDS-BASED AND SCHOOL-BASED INSERVICE TEACHER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The DepEd, through its Bureau of Elementary Education (BEE), Bureau of
Secondary Education (BSE) and Bureau of Alternative Learning Systems (BALS),
has the sole responsibility for the in-service education of teachers (INSET) in the
Philippines. The majority of ODA projects during the past two decades have been
based within DepEd, and so INSET has been the recipient of most of the assistance.
This INSET assistance has been diverse and short-term, and has usually constituted
one-shot courses of various durations ranging from half-a-day to one-week. Topics
covered have been diverse, ranging from administrative capacity-building, subject
enrichment, classroom management, teaching strategies, and so on.
There are several dimensions that need to be considered if the INSET under the
DepEd shall be redesigned to be more consistent with the philosophy and framework
of the NCBTS. These dimensions refer to (a) the focus of the INSET, (b) the modes
and qualities of the INSET programs, (c) the administration of the INSET, and (d) the
supports and sources of inputs for the INSET.
4.2 Focus of INSET Programs
TEDP Report, page 79
In previous evaluations of INSET programs, teachers were consistent in criticizing
the INSET programs as being unresponsive to their actual needs. Thus, teachers
often report that the inputs and learnings in the various INSET programs they were
required to attend were not always found to be applicable or useful in their actual
teaching stations.
If the INSET programs will be truly responsive to teachers’
developmental goals and aspirations, and if the INSET programs aim to help
teachers develop in line with the NCBTS, it is necessary that ALL inset programs be
initiated on the basis of some needs-analysis at the level of the school.
The NCBTS provides a clear and broad framework within which teachers and school
heads/principals can appraise current teaching practices. If this appraisal is based
on a sound understanding and appreciation of the NCBTS philosophy, domains, and
indicators, teachers and school heads can agree on what are the competencies that
should be the priority target areas for INSET. Thus, all proposals for INSET should
emanate from actual data at the school level regarding the competency standards
that teachers need more assistance and support.
It is important that INSET programs that are based on NCBTS needs-assessment
look at the competencies and indicators NOT in isolated fashion.
The NCBTS
domains and indicators are supposed to be integrated parts of a whole, thus it might
not be effective or efficient to simply target one competency or indicator in an INSET
activity. Instead, INSET programs and activities should be designed to address sets
or complexes of interrelated competencies and indicators. An example of a good
NCBTS-based INSET topic would be how new performance-assessment procedures
(Domain 5) can be effectively used to understand the diverse learning resources of
students (Domain 3) and to design a range of teaching-learning activities (Domain 4)
TEDP Report, page 80
suited for different types of learners, thus creating a highly conducive and motivating
psychological environment for all learners (Domain 2).
4.3 Mode and Qualities of INSET Programs
Previous evaluation studies of DepEd INSET programs point to the fact that most
INSET programs take the form of short seminar/workshops which are more
informational in quality. That is, teachers are required to attend a lecture or seminar
and asked to listen to inputs from an expert on some new teaching strategy or
approach to assessment, and so on. In some truly problematic cases, teachers
report being made to attend a Division INSET activity in a crowded auditorium with
around a thousand teachers listening to a lecturer who did not have very good
audiovisual materials. It is not surprising that teacher report that dissatisfaction with
such modes of INSET.
A few teachers (usually science and math teachers) have the good fortune of being
selected to attend more intensive INSET activities on teaching strategies. These
teachers usually report more satisfaction with the type of INSET experience they
had, as they had more time and space to explore and understand the new ideas and
practices they were experiences in the intensive INSET. However, the teachers still
report concerns about their capability to apply their INSET learning to their own
schools. Often they point to elements in their school context (e.g., the principal or
the supervisor who will not allow change, the lack of the necessary materials and
resources, etc.) that prevent them from effectively applying what they learned.
These evaluation studies, as well as research and theory on teacher development in
other countries, point to certain qualities that need to be considered in INSET
TEDP Report, page 81
programs. These qualities can be summarized in terms of some key concepts: (a)
problem-focused, (b) active and interactive, (c) critical and reflective, and (d)
contextualized.
Effective INSET programs are problem-focused.
New information on teaching
approaches and strategies would not always be seen as relevant or meaningful by
classroom teachers if they do not see how this new information relates to some very
real problems they have in their teaching.
Thus, it is important to couch the
objectives of any INSET program in terms of problems in the teaching-learning
processes that teachers will recognize and be able to relate to. Teachers are not
likely to appreciate new information simply because this is supposed to be the new
trend. Teachers need to see that the new concepts and skills can help them do a
better job in helping their students learn.
Effective INSET programs are also experiential. Teachers are engaged in active and
interactive learning experiences that require them to constantly process old and new
information.
Thus, good INSET programs involve teachers in actual hands-on
activities that require them to engage and explore new information, to apply and
evaluate this information, and perhaps even create more new information. Such
types of active learning experiences give the teachers a very real feel of how the new
information can actually be used.
Very often, active learning experiences are
enhanced when teachers work in collaborative groups or teams. Collaboration and
cooperative group activities allow teachers to be more relaxed and less
apprehensive in engaging new information as they have their peers to provide
emotional and cognitive support. Groups of teachers are also more likely to actively
explore, apply, criticize, and be creative with new ideas, as there is a sharing of
TEDP Report, page 82
mental, emotional and other psychological resources in engaging the new
information. Generally, the affect in group learning activities is more positive than in
individual learning activities, and thus the motivation to pursue the more complex and
demanding cognitive aspects of the INSET is also stronger.
Building on the preceding point, effective INSET programs allow teachers to engage
in critical reflection about their current practices and how this relates to the new
information being presented in the INSET program. In other words, good INSET
program avoid expecting teachers to passively accept the new information. Instead,
good INSET programs create opportunities for teachers to critically reflect on both
their current practices and the new information that is being presented.
True
learning and teacher development arises when teachers or groups of teachers are
able to resolve contradictions between current and new ideas.
Needless to say, part of the critical reflection that teachers need to consider relates
to how their current practices are rooted in aspects of their context (i.e., their school
culture, the resources in their school environment, the values and support structures
provided in the community, the policies of the Division, Regional and Central offices
of the DepEd, etc.). They need to also reflect on how new ideas might apply or not
apply to their current contexts. In this regard, effective INSET programs aim to be
very contextualized by attempting to embed the activities within authentic teaching or
work environments of the teachers. It is not surprising that generally, school-based
INSET programs are found to be more effective in improving teaching practices
compared to decontextualized INSET programs in remote settings.
TEDP Report, page 83
It might be impossible to realize all these qualities of effective INSET programs in all
INSET activities. A more realistic expectation is that all INSET programs aim to
feature as many qualities of effective INSET programs as possible, and to minimize
the qualities of ineffective INSET activities, as well.
The past three decades of
INSET has shown that many types of INSET activities are ineffective, so deliberate
care should be taken to design and implement effective INSET activities.
4.4 Administration of INSET
As mentioned earlier, the DepEd is responsible for the INSET of public school
teachers, but INSET programs have been initiated at different levels of the DepEd
bureaucracy.
Although it is safe to say that all INSET programs initiated within
DepEd are well-intentioned and are motivated by very clear development goals for
teachers, the lack of coordination of the administration of INSET has created an
incoherent system of INSET. The incoherence is expressed in cases when there are
duplications of INSET activities at the national, division, and regional levels. The
worst expressions of this incoherence are when two different INSET activities give
the teachers two conflicting mandates or prescriptions regarding teaching.
The administration of INSET should be rationalized so that the INSET is initiated in
ways that most effectively respond to the development needs of teachers in the
classroom, yet draw from the widest possible set of resources to help the teachers.
The proposed system of administration of INSET should be initiated by school heads
or principals, and should be embedded within the School Improvement Plans. This
proposal is consistent with the School-Based Management (SBM) and RA 9155 (or
the “Shared Governance Act”). The school head or principal is actually in the best
TEDP Report, page 84
position to articulate the collective professional development needs of teachers in the
school, and is also in the best position to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of
INSET activities in improving teaching practices and student learning.
Unfortunately, however, not all school heads or principals can have access to the
necessary resources to implement the INSET programs needed by their teachers.
These resources may take the form of resource person, learning materials, financial
resources, among others. Thus, it is important that the initiatives of the school heads
be able to tap the resources available at the higher levels of the DepEd bureaucracy.
However, there is a need to ensure that the system of tapping available resources is
done in an efficient and systematic way in order to avoid the incoherence
characteristic of the status quo.
In this regard, it is proposed that the DepEd
mandate the National Educators Academy of the Philippines (NEAP) to coordinate
the administration of INSET activities in all public schools in the country.
The NEAP is the focal office of the DepEd in the area of Human Resources
Development (HRD) that presently has a mandate to provide training for Educational
Administrators only. The NEAP is already constituted as a body equipped to deliver
or commission capacity building programs for educational administrators across the
Philippines. NEAP’s role could be expanded to allow it to assume responsibility for
teachers in addition to their present role. But additional regional sub-offices of NEAP
should be established within each Regional Office so that the INSET can be
coordinated between between the NEAP and the DepEd units from the Regional
Offices down to the schools.
TEDP Report, page 85
Note that at present, the INSET training for teachers is presently provided by the
Bureaus (Bureau of Elementary Education, Bureau of Secondary Education, and
Bureau of Alternative Learning Systems). However, what is needed is a singular
body that will oversee that all INSET activities are consistent with the NCBTS, that
there is no unnecessary duplication of efforts, and most important, that there is a
rational and efficient planning of activities and allocation of resources for maximum
impact. With the need for just one single administrating agency, the NEAP is the
most viable option relative to the Bureaus.
The main mandate of the NEAP shall be to coordinate the implementation of INSET
programs proposed in the SIPs. To do this, NEAP needs to work with the Regional
Offices and Division Offices of the DepEd to tap the various types of resources
available in the different regions. In terms of resources, the DepEd Regional and
Divisions offices have internal financial resources and expertise that can support
INSET. Some DepEd Regional Offices also have development assistance projects
(foreign and locally-supported) that can be harnessed for INSET. In addition, some
TEIs already provide formal, award-bearing post-graduate study programs for
teachers who wish to upgrade their formal qualifications, and this study is undertaken
outside of school hours in the teacher’s own time. TEIs, particularly those who have
benefited from ODA projects, are also commissioned by adjacent regionally-based
schools on a cost-per-service basis to provide professional guidance, training
expertise and action research as an integral part of INSET through short, subjectspecific, training programs of varying duration. At the very least the TEIs in the
Region are the best source of experts or resource persons for INSET activities.
There are also other possible sources of resource persons within the region, such as
NGOs, other government agencies, private and corporate foundations, among
TEDP Report, page 86
others. It is important that all these possible sources of different types of resources
be utilized efficiently and rationally.
This is where Regional NEAP offices will be of service. The Regional NEAP offices
shall coordinate the resources available among the Regional Office, the Regional
TEI’s, NGO’s, foundations, and other agencies, and ensure that all INSET activities
in SIPs are aligned with desired regional targets. On the other hand, the NEAP
Central Office shall develop and articulate the overall systems and framework for
administering INSET activities across the regions, and ensure that all regions comply
with these guidelines. Such guidelines may include specific actions at the regional
level such as, but are not limited to the following:

Formulating policies and guidelines for the approval of INSET programs
proposed within SIPs (see 15.1);

Formulating the INSET program standards (see 15.2);

Formulating general guidelines for the financing and administration of
INSET programs, including the evaluation and impact assessment of
such programs;

Establishing an inventory/registry of accredited TEIs (public and private)
and resource persons within the TEIs that can be tapped for INSET
activities for the regions (see related Proposed Actions #5 and #7); and

Establishing an inventory or registry of other available resources within
the Region that can be tapped for INSET activities for the public schools
in the region;

Ensuring that the most Deprived, Disadvantaged and Underserved (DDU)
schools will be given priority in the implementation of INSET; and
TEDP Report, page 87

Recognize outstanding (innovative and creative) INSET programs
initiated by schools and nominate these as possible models for replication
in other regions and schools.
Proposed Action #15:
The DepEd shall coordinate all INSET activities for public school teachers
through the National Educators Academy of the Philippines (NEAP). The
mandate of the NEAP shall be expanded to include the coordination of
INSET programs for teachers (a function that used to be shared among
different DepEd offices). As part of the expanded mandate of the NEAP, it
shall develop, articulate, and monitor the implementation of a framework,
policies, standards, and guidelines for the administration of INSET
programs. This framework, policies, standards and guidelines shall
include the following:

policies and guidelines for the approval of INSET programs proposed
by individual schools as part of their SIP;

quality standards for the design and implementation of the INSET
program standards;

general guidelines for the financing and administration of INSET
programs, including program evaluation and impact assessment;
/continued
TEDP Report, page 88
Proposed Action #15 (continued):

the establishment of an inventory or registry of accredited TEIs (both
public and private) and resource persons within the TEIs that can be
tapped for INSET activities for the regions (see related Proposed
Actions #5 and #7);

the establishment of an inventory or registry of other available
resources within the Region that can be tapped for INSET activities for
the public schools in the region;

ensuring that the most Deprived, Disadvantaged and Underserved
(DDU) schools will be given priority in the implementation of INSET;
and

recognizing outstanding (innovative and creative) INSET programs
initiated by schools and nominate these as possible models for
replication in other regions and schools.
16
REVISING THE POLICIES FOR THE ACADEMIC
SUPERVISION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS
Consultations with teachers, school heads, and supervisors in different division in
different parts of the country indicate a wide range of practices related to the
academic supervision of classroom teachers by division supervisors. Many of the
practices seem to have been simply maintained over the years, although some
progressive Division Superintendents have adopted more positive practices in this
regard. However, the consultations also point to the common prevailing practice for
TEDP Report, page 89
supervisors to prescribe and to control actions of classroom teachers (e.g., in relation
to lesson planning, teacher-made tests, classroom management, etc.).
The
practices, unfortunately, are clearly inconsistent with the framework and assumptions
that guided the development and articulation of the NCBTS.
In this regard, a worthwhile medium-term program that the DepEd can undertake is
to develop a new framework for supervision of classroom teachers that consider the
following principles:
(a) The competency-based standards framework of the NCBTS that emphasizes the
need for the teacher to be flexible, innovative, reflective in utilizing and adapting
teaching and instructional processes to suit varied characteristics of learners, of
specific curriculum topics and objectives, and the learning resources and
environments;
(b) The assumption that teacher development is a process that is primarily driven by
the motivations and capacities of individual teachers, and the opportunities
available to them; and that these processes need to be sustained by
communities of teachers addressing the same common goals and problems, and
supported by external structures and agents (including Division supervisors)
through convergent and favorable programs; and
(c) The school-based management paradigm that empowers schools to take greater
control over the management of their resources towards the general
improvement of the schools, but in particular, to enhance the attainment levels of
student learning.
TEDP Report, page 90
Proposed Action #16:
The DepEd shall create a Technical Working Group under the National
Educators Academy of the Philippines (NEAP) to develop a broad
framework for academic supervision of classroom teachers that will
articulate a general guide for Division supervisors in their responsibilities
of supporting classroom teachers. The framework shall be
(a) consistent with the teacher development framework and high
standards set in the NCBTS,
(b) supportive of the personal motivations and capacities of individual
classroom teachers to improve their practice, and
(c) supportive of school improvement efforts under the school-based
management framework.
The Technical Working Group shall consist of a team of past and present
supervisors, current principals and school heads, teachers and master
teachers, with the assistance of technical experts on academic
supervision who shall be identified by the NEAP.
17
REVISING THE FRAMEWORK AND POLICIES FOR THE
EVALUATION OF TEACHER PERFORMANCE
Perhaps one of the most important documents that needs to be revised in relation to
the adoption of the NCBTS is the DepEd’s Performance Appraisal System (PAS),
TEDP Report, page 91
which is the performance evaluation instrument used to for monitoring teacher’s
performance
and
effectiveness,
articulated
in
Civil
Service
Commission
Memorandum Circular No. 13 (s. 1999), and implemented through DepEd Order No.
27 (s. 2002). The PAST ratings are used for many different purposes in the DepEd’s
human resource development activities, including promotion and hiring as Master
Teacher, among others.
Consultations with teachers, master teachers, principals and school heads did not
yield a consensus regarding how well the PAS is aligned with the NCBTS. It seems
that the general impression is that some of the detailed indicators of the PAS are
very consistent with indicators in the core domains of the NCBTS, but that there are
several performance appraisal criteria in the PAS that are not consistent with the
NCBTS. There is also the general impression that there are important aspects of the
NCBTS that are not included in the PAS. The lack of a definite position regarding
the PAS may stem from the need for more time to more deeply appreciate the
philosophy, the framework, and the indicators of the NCBTS.
Yet, all those
consulted point to the need to revise the PAS to be more faithful to the NCBTS.
Thus, the DepEd should undertake deliberate but careful steps to review and revise
the current PAS, then pilot and implement a new performance appraisal system.
There are four very important points that should be underscored in this effort.
First, and more important, any revision and implementation of a revised performance
appraisal system based on the NCBTS should only be undertaken after there has
been sufficient time devoted to allowing teachers to understand and apply the
NCBTS for their own professional development goals and plans, and after there has
TEDP Report, page 92
been sufficient resources and activities devoted to helping teachers attain their
professional development goals using the NCBTS. In other words, the development
and implementation of an alternative performance appraisal system should be
consistent with the developmental philosophy of the NCBTS.
The alternative
performance appraisal system should not be used punitively or to control teachers,
as these are likely to strong resistance and negative sentiments about both the
NCBTS and the performance appraisal system with some sectors of teachers.
Second, the performance appraisal system should aim to be consistent in form and
substance with the NCBTS.
In other words, the performance appraisal system
should be competency-based and not credentials-based, and should reflect a
developmental perspective on the various domains and indicators articulated in the
NCBTS.
Thus, the appraisal of the competency indicators should consider the
quality, frequency, consistency, appropriateness, and teachers’ awareness in
assessing the various domains and indicators. And the appraisal system should
reflect the interrelatedness of the domains and indicators, instead of treating the
various indicators as distinct, mutually exclusive and independent.
Third, these preceding considerations might require that the performance appraisal
instrument depart from the traditional paper-and-pencil type of instrument, and utilize
more contemporary authentic and performance-oriented assessment or appraisal
procedures, that draw from different sources of information.
Fourth and finally, the performance appraisal system shall clearly differentiate
performance standards appropriate to the professional experience or developmental
level of the teacher. Thus, there is a need to differentiate between standards for
TEDP Report, page 93
(a) new or beginning teachers (for teachers graduating from a TEI and seeking
employment as a teacher, and for teachers who have been employed for less
than three years);
(b) experienced teachers (for a teachers who has been employed for a minimum of 3
years); and
(c) Master Teachers (for a teacher who has been employed for a minimum of 5
years).
The specific categories to be used to differentiate teachers at different stages of
professional development can be determined and defined in other ways, as may be
appropriate.
Proposed Action #17:
The DepEd shall create a Technical Working Group to review the existing
Performance Appraisal System (PAS), with the view of developing an
alternative performance appraisal system that is aligned with the NCBTS.
The TWG shall be guided by the following principles:

The development and implementation of the alternative performance
appraisal system shall be undertaken only after sufficient time,
resources, and activities have been devoted to allowing teachers to
understand and appreciate the NCBTS and to in-service teacher
education programs to help teacher attain the NCBTS indicators.
/continued
TEDP Report, page 94
Proposed Action #17 (continued):

In that regard, the development and implementation of the alternative
performance appraisal system shall not be undertaken punitively or
with the goal of controlling teachers’ behaviors.

The alternative performance appraisal system shall reflect the
competency-based, developmental, and integrated nature of the
NCBTS.

The alternative performance appraisal system shall adopt more
authentic modes of performance assessment, drawing from a variety of
information sources.

The alternative performance appraisal system shall articulate different
competency standards for teachers at different stages of their
professional development.
18
REVISING THE POLICIES FOR THE RETENTION AND
PROMOTION OF TEACHERS, AND SELECTION OF
MASTER TEACHERS
The retention and promotion policies of DepEd, together with the design and
contents of the Performance Appraisal System (PAS) comprise the key policy
instruments that can support and sustain the developmental framework of the
TEDP Report, page 95
NCBTS.
It is important that the conceptual statements of the domains and the
defined indicators are truly expressed as the basis for recognizing and promoting
teachers. Thus, there is a need to review the current guidelines on the retention and
promotion of teachers, especially of Master Teachers. It is worth noting that the
current policies define, among other criteria, that the potential master teacher should
have demonstrated capabilities to raise funds. Such a criterion, and perhaps some
others in the current guidelines, is clearly not aligned with the NCBTS.
Proposed Action #18:
The same Technical Working Group that will be tasked to revise the PAS
(see Proposed Action 17) shall also review and revise the current
guidelines for the retention and promotion of teachers and master
teachers in public schools by aligning the evaluation and rating system
with the competency-based system and indicators of the NCBTS. In
particular, the following actions can be undertaken:

The credentials-based criteria and other indicators that are not
consistent with the NCBTS framework shall be dropped.

The main basis for recognition and promotion shall be demonstration
of the teacher competency standards that shall be articulated in the
revised performance appraisal system that is aligned with the NCBTS.
TEDP Report, page 96
19
ADOPTION OF NCBTS FOR ALL AWARDS AND
RECOGNITION FOR TEACHERS
The recognition of outstanding performance of teachers is an important system that
supports the aspirations of many teachers to do good work in the service. Such
awards range from recognition by individual schools, communities, and barangays,
to national awards such as the Philippine Civil Service Awards such as the
Presidential Linkod Award, Dangal ng Bayan Award, CSC Pag-asa Award, and
awards from private groups such as the, Metrobank Award for Outstanding
Teachers, among others. It is important to ensure that all such awards recognize
exemplary achievement of teachers on all or specific domains of the NCBTS, in
order to clearly communicate with all stakeholders the singular adherence to the
NCBTS framework.
To ensure that all awards given by the DepEd, including all those forms of
recognition at the level of the school, are consistent with the NCBTS, the DepEd
shall issue an order stipulating that all DepEd awards and recognition to be given to
teachers should be adopt criteria that are solely based on exemplary demonstration
of the domains and indicators of the NCBTS.
Regarding significant awards being
given by private and other agencies at the regional and national level, the DepEd
should, as part of its advocacy for the NCBTS initiate dialogue with the appropriate
award-giving bodies to encourage them to adopt criteria that are based wholly or in
part on the domains and indicators of the NCBTS.
TEDP Report, page 97
Proposed Action #19
The DepEd shall ensure that all recognition and awards given to public
school teachers shall be based on criteria that are consistent with the
NCBTS framework, domains and indicators. In particular, the following
actions can be undertaken:

The DepEd shall issue an Order stipulation that all DepEd awards for
teachers at all levels of the bureaucracy shall be adopt selection criteria
that are solely based on the domains and indicators defined in the
NCBTS.

The DepEd shall initiate dialogue with notable award giving bodies
(outside the DepEd) that recognize outstanding achievement of teachers,
and encourage that these awards adopt criteria that are based wholly or in
part on the domains and indicators of the NCBTS.
20
DEVELOPING TEACHING QUALITY INDICATORS FOR
SCHOOLS
In addition to recognizing achievement of teachers at the individual level, it is also
important that the educational system be able to identify and recognize achievement
in teaching quality at the school, division, and even regional levels. Basically, the
issue is how do stakeholder and the general the public know about the teaching
quality in one school, division, or region? Presently, data on students’ achievement
levels are taken as indicators of the quality of teaching. But educational research
TEDP Report, page 98
indicates that although teaching quality definitely accounts for a significant proportion
of the variance of student achievement, there are many other factors that determine
actual levels of student achievement. Thus, it is important to develop more direct
indicators of teaching quality at the school level. These indicators would refer to the
collective achievement of teachers within an organizational unit in the educational
bureaucracy, and should necessarily refer to the competencies indicated in the
NCBTS. In this regard, the DepEd should task a TWG (possibly the same TWG
designated in Proposed Action #16 or #17 and #18) to develop the indicators,
guidelines, and procedures for assessing teaching quality at the school level.
Proposed Action #20:
A Technical Working Group (possibly same as in Proposed Action 16 or
17 and 18, shall develop a system for assessing teaching quality at the
school level. The system shall specify the indicators of teaching quality at
the school level that should be based on the domains of the NCBTS, as
well as the guidelines and procedures to be followed for assessing
teaching quality at the school level.
21.
CAMPAIGN FOR IMPROVED WORKING CONDITIONS
AND ENVIRONMENTS FOR TEACHERS
One very important enabling factor for teacher development was consistently
identified in all consultations on the TEDP. This factor is the working conditions and
working environment within which public school teachers have to work.
Many
TEDP Report, page 99
teachers have to deal with many challenges in their respective work settings, and
attend to some mandated functions that are not directly related to their teaching
responsibilities. For example, teachers are still regularly deputized for election duties
by the Commission on Elections, and required to do tasks such as preparing food for
guests and other logistical requirements for extra-curricular activities in the school. A
significant proportion of active teachers in the service are actually not teaching but
attending to administrative functions at different levels of the bureaucracy. Not all of
these functions directly or even indirectly related to the core teaching-learning
functions, and some are evidently not supportive of the NCBTS framework.
It is highly advised that the DepEd think of long-term solutions that would lead to
improving the working conditions of teachers within the schools, so that teachers can
devote more time to reflective and planful activities related to their professional
development. More than short-term externally supported INSET programs, regular
school-based peer-supported teacher development activities have a more profound
and sustainable impact of improving actual classroom teaching practices.
Proposed Action #21
The DepEd shall plan for long-term solutions to improve the work
environment and working conditions of teachers in the public schools. In
particular, long-term solutions need to be developed that will remove
responsibilities not directly related to the teaching-learning process, and
create work conditions that would allow teachers more time and resources
for regular, teacher-initiated, school-based teacher development activities.
TEDP Report, page 100
22
BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH ON TEACHER
DEVELOPMENT TO SUPPORT POLICY AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The DepEd and other educational agencies (e.g., the CHED, TEC, DOST-SEI,
FAPE, etc.) have supported education research that involves application and
evaluation of programs implemented to support teacher development.
However,
almost all of these research activities take the form of descriptive studies
characterizing current practices or evaluation studies that comment on the current
programs and practices. The DepEd and other educational agencies should explore
possible ways of other forms of education research take a more pro-active approach
to educational problems. One example of such is applied research (e.g., design
experiments, participatory action) that would focus on developing, piloting, and
evaluation innovative programs and approaches to the various specific problems of
teaching. These types of applied research also need to be based on sound and
sophisticated theorizing about the teaching-learning process in the Philippine
context. Thus, another example of this more pro-active approach to educational
problems involves basic educational research that aims to develop theories and
models on the teaching-learning processes and the teacher development processes
that are situated or contextualized in Philippine realities.
In recent years, research on teaching and teacher development has been supported
as part of ODA to the DepEd. There is no sustained research program on teaching
and teacher development; teacher education research is ad hoc and sporadic. But
dependence on such forms of funding does not allow for a sustained program of
TEDP Report, page 101
research on teaching and teacher development that is necessary to develop new and
sophisticated lines of theorizing that could serve as more thoughtful guides to
program design, innovation, and policy-making.
The DepEd should find ways to integrate these research activities into a coherent,
programmatic, and sustainable research enterprise. There are models available in
other countries, including for example, the Center for Research on Pedagogy and
Practice under the National Institute of Education in Singapore. The DepEd should
take the lead in establishing such a system or program, and in developing a system
of providing sustainable financial support for the same. In taking the lead, the DepEd
would need to coordinate with other agencies such as the CHED and Department of
Science and Technology, and other offices such as the National Research Council of
the Philippines, National Academy of Science and Technology, and National
Commission on Culture and the Arts, among others. The DepEd should consider
how such an enterprise could be financed not through government appropriations,
but through various forms of private sector (local and international) support.
Proposed Action #22
The DepEd shall take the lead in developing a program or system that
would support sustained, programmatic, and coherent research activities
related to the teaching-learning and teacher development processes, with
the view of developing contextually appropriate theories, models, and
practices related to teaching and teacher development.
/continued
TEDP Report, page 102
Proposed Action #22 (continued):
The DepEd shall coordinate with other education and research related
agencies to set up the framework and policies for the maintenance of such
a research enterprise, and to that such would result in useful new
knowledge that would guide the development of innovative and relevant
new practices, programs, and policies related to teaching and teacher
development.
23.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS
The Teacher Education and Development Program (TEDP) proposes a unified
framework for teacher development, the National Competency-Based Teacher
Standards (NCBTS), and a set of 22 Proposed Actions anchored on the NCBTS and
its attainment.
The 22 Proposed Actions can be summarized in terms of the phase of the Teacher
Development Map and this summary is shown in Table 3 below.
In addition to the
different phases of the Teacher Development Map, Table 3 indicates the Proposed
Actions that are necessary to recognize and enable the NCBTS and to create
supporting policies for the teacher development process.
TEDP Report, page 103
Table 3. Summary of Proposed Actions
Phase in Teacher
Proposed
Development Map
Action #
Setting up of NCBTS
Proposed Action
1
Joint Inter-Agency Resolution Adopting the NCBTS
as Unified Framework for Teacher Development
2
Information Dissemination, Orientation and
Advocacy on the NCBTS
3
Reforming Recruitment, Admission and Retention
Policies of Pre-Service Teacher Education
4
Aligning the Pre-Service Teacher Education
Curriculum with the NCBTS
5
Developing Effective Mechanisms for the
Experiential Learning Component of Pre-Service
Teacher Education in Public Schools
6
Medium-Term Development Plan for Capacity
Building for Teacher Education Institutions
7
Identifying COEs Mandated to Assist in Capacity
Building of TEIs
8
Library & Resource Development Program for TEIs
9
Rationalization and stronger monitoring teacher
education institutions
10
Strengthening Alternatives to The Pre-Service
Teacher Education Curriculum
Licensure of Teachers
11
Reforming the System of Licensing and Certification
of Professional Teachers
Recruitment and Hiring
12
Revising the Policies for Recruitment, Hiring, and
Deployment of New Teachers
Induction
13
Mandatory Induction Programs Permanency
In-Service Education
14
Assessment of Teacher Development Needs
15
Program of Needs-Based and School-Based InService Teacher Development Programs
16
Revising the Policies for the Academic Supervision
of Public School Teachers
17
Revising the Framework and Policies for the
Evaluation of Teacher Performance
18
Revising the Policies for the Promotion of Teachers
and Selection of Master Teachers
19
Adoption of NSBTS for All Awards and Recognition
for Teachers
20
Development of System for Assessing Teaching
Quality of Schools
21
Campaign for Improved Working Conditions and
Environments for Teachers
22
Basic & Applied Research on Teacher Development
to Support Policy and Development Programs
Pre-Service Teacher
Education
Supportive
Environment
TEDP Report, page 104
The proposed actions can also be organized in terms of priorities, as some actions
require immediate implementation, whereas others require more long-term
undertakings. The prioritization of the proposed actions is summarized in Table 4,
which also includes the time frame and lead and supporting agencies.
Table 4. Summary of Proposed Actions by Priority
Priority
Urgent
(ASAP)
Urgent
(within 6
months)
Within 1
year
Proposed
Action #
Proposed Action
Lead
Agency
1
Joint Inter-Agency Resolution Adopting the NCBTS
as Unified Framework for Teacher Development
DepEd
2
Information Dissemination, Orientation and
Advocacy on the NCBTS (Continuous for 1 or 2
years)
DepEd
5
Developing Effective Mechanisms for the
Experiential Learning Component of Pre-Service
Teacher Education in Public Schools
TEC
14
Assessment of Teacher Development Needs
(continuous for next 5 years)
DepEd
3
Reforming Recruitment, Admission and Retention
Policies of Pre-Service Teacher Education
CHED
4
Aligning the Pre-Service Teacher Education
Curriculum with the NCBTS
CHED
10
Strengthening Alternatives To The Pre-Service
Teacher Education Curriculum (continuous for 1 or
2 years)
12
Revising the Policies for Recruitment, Hiring, and
Deployment of New Teachers
DepEd
15
Program of Needs-Based and School-Based InService Teacher Development Programs
(continuous for next 5 or more years)
DepEd /
NEAP
6
Medium-Term Development Plan for Capacity
Building for Teacher Education Institutions
CHED
7
Identifying COEs Mandated to Assist in Capacity
Building of TEIs
CHED
9
Rationalization And Stronger Monitoring Teacher
Education Institutions (continuous for 2 or 3 years)
CHED
11
Reforming the System of Licensing and Certification
of Professional Teachers (continuous for 2 or 3
years)
19
Adoption of NSBTS for All Awards and Recognition
DepEd
for Teachers (continuous for 1 or 2 years)
/table continues
CHED &
PRC
PRC
TEDP Report, page 105
Table 4. Summary of Proposed Actions by Priority (continued)
Priority
Within 2
years
Proposed
Action #
Proposed Action
Lead
Agency
21
Campaign for Improved Working Conditions and
Environments for Teachers (continuous for 4 or 5
years)
DepEd
8
Library and Resource Development Program for
TEIs
CHED
13
Mandatory Induction Programs Permanency
DepEd /
TEC
16
Revising the Policies for the Academic Supervision
of Public School Teachers
DepEd
17
Revising the Framework and Policies for the
Evaluation of Teacher Performance
DepEd &
CSC
18
Revising the Policies for the Promotion of Teachers
and Selection of Master Teachers
DepEd &
CSC
20
Development of System for Assessing Teaching
Quality of Schools
DepEd
22
Basic and Applied Research on Teacher
Development to Support Policy and Development
Programs
DepEd
TEDP Report, page 106
Resources
International Resources
Abell Foundation. (2001). Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling for quality
Retrieved October 2001 from http://www.abell.org.
Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Reforming teacher education: Competing agendas.
Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 263-265.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Defining the outcomes of teacher education. AsiaPacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 193-212.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Fries, M. K. (2001). Sticks, stones, and ideology: The
discourse of reform in teacher education. Education Researcher, 30(8), 3-15.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved
from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The research and rhetoric on teacher certification: A
response to “Teacher certification reconsidered.’ Retrieved October 2001
from http://www.nctaf.org.
Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification
matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 23(1), 57-77.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher
preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach?
Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 286-302.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”:
What does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us?
Education
Researcher, 31(9), 13-25.
Fang, Z. (1996) A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Education
Researcher, 38, 47-65.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching
profession: What would it look like and how can we get one. Education
Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
Hollingsworth, S. (1989) Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach.
American Educational Research Journal, 26, 160-189.
National Institute for Educational Research. (1997). Teachers, teacher education
and development. Tokyo: NIER-APEID.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking
have to say about research on teacher learning. Education Researcher, 29,
4-15.
Rowland, S. (1993). The enquiring tutor: Exploring the process of professional
learning. London: The Falmer Press.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s
best teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free
Press.
Tom, A. R. (1997). Redesigning teacher education. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
TEDP Report, page 107
Philippine Resources
Asian Development Bank and World Bank (1999) Philippine education for the 21st
Century: The 1998 Philippines Education Sector Study. Asian Development
Bank. Manila.
Bagaforo, J.B. (1999) Mathematical competencies of prospective mathematics
teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the Philippines.
Quezon City, Philippines.
Bago, A.S. (1998). Cost-effectiveness of teacher education in the Philippines: a
comparative analysis of public and private schools programs. FAPE Review,
24, 59-75.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (1999). The striving and the struggle for teacher development: The
contexts, issues, trends, and opportunities in in-service teacher training in the
Philippines. In Y. Tabata & L. Griek (Eds.), Ensuring opportunities for the
professional development of teachers (pp. 141-158). Higashi-Hiroshima City,
Japan: Hiroshima University UNESCO-APEID Associated Centre.
Bernardo, A. B. I., Clemeña, R. M. S., Prudente, M. S. (2000). The contexts and
practices of science and mathematics education in the Philippines:
Foundations of responsive science and mathematics teacher education
programs. Manila: Lasallian Institute for Development and Educational
Research.
Bernardo, A. B. I., Prudente, M. S., & Limjap, A. A. (2003). Exploring Mathematics
and Science Teaching in the Philippines. Manila: Lasallian Institute for
Development and Educational Research.
Bernardo, A. B. I., Limjap, A. A., Roleda, L. S., & Prudente, M. S. (2005). Endline
study on math and science teaching for the SBTP. Manila: JICA-Philippines
& DLSU-LIDER.
Bernardo, A. B. I. & Mendoza, R. J. (in press) Makabayan in the Philippine Basic
Education curriculum. In Reforming Learning: International Perspectives, ed.
C. H. Ng & P. D. Renhaw. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht,
Netherlands.
DECS-World Bank. (1995). Report of the DECS-World Bank study on teacher
education (1993-1995). Manila: DECS/WB.
Department of Science and Technology-Science Education Institute. (2001). A
survey on teacher education institutions offering Bachelor of Science
Education programs. Department of Science Technology. Taguig,
Philippines.
Enriquez, R.D. (1997). Status of teacher education program of selected private
colleges and universities in Pampanga: an assessment. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Guagua National Colleges, Pampanga, Philippines.
Golla, E. F. & de Guzman, E. S. (1998) Teacher preparation in science and
mathematics education: A situation analysis. In Science Education in the
Philippines: Challenges for Development Technical Papers, eds. E. Ogena &
F. Brawner, pp. 41-78. Department of Science and Technology-Science
Education Institute. Taguig, Philippines.
Hadji-Raof, Z.P. (1994). Status of the bachelor of secondary education program
major in biology offered by selected institutions in the National Capital
Region. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, De La Salle University-Manila.
Manila, Philippines.
Ibe, M. D. (1999) Teacher education: its implication to basic education. Retrieved
June 27, 2003 from: http://www.adnu.edu.ph/MainWeb/Research/art03.html.
TEDP Report, page 108
Lacuata, F. C. (2000) Competencies in literature and language of English majors and
concentrators of private and public teacher-training institutions in the National
Capital Region: A comparative analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
National Teachers College. Manila, Philippines.
Laurel-Sotto. R. (1995) Assessment of the integrated science process skills and
cognitive abilities of education students in selected teacher training
institutions in Metro Manila. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, De La Salle
University-Manila. Manila, Philippines.
Navarro, R., Villaescusa, Z., & Santos, R. (1994) Study of pre-service elementary
teacher training (SPETT). Bureau of Higher Education & PAFTE. Manila.
Pabiton, C. P. & Rayos, N. C. (2003). Benchmarking the form and content of preservice teacher education in the Philippines. Technical Report submitted to
the Commission on Higher Education. Pasig City, Philippines.
Pedro, L. A. C. (1996). A quantitative-qualitative analysis of the pre-service program
for mathematics teacher. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of the
Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines.
Philippines Normal University Research Center. (1999). Case studies of best
practices in laboratory schools. CHED. Pasig City, Philippines.
Presidential Commission on Education Reform. (2000). Philippine agenda for
educational reform: The PCER report. PCER. Pasig City, Philippines.
Prudente, M.S. (2001). Case study report: the science/mathematics teaching and
learning process in pre-service teacher education programs of De La Salle
University. Quezon City: EDRENET-UP-NISMED-SEI.
Ramos, M. F. V. (1999). The competence of the prospective and beginning
secondary mathematics teachers in Luzon: An analysis. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, De La Salle University-Manila. Manila, Philippines.
Rayos, N. C. & Pabiton, C. P. (2003) Benchmarking the content of pre-service
teacher education courses in the Philippines. Technical Report submitted to
the Commission on Higher Education. Pasig City, Philippines.
Reyes, J. A. S. & Wong-Fernandez, B. (2003) Comparing the products of two preservice teacher education systems in the Philippines. Technical Report
submitted to the Commission on Higher Education. Pasig City, Philippines.
Sotto, I.S. (1999). Institutional capability and performance of teacher training
institutions in the licensure examination and in research. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines.
Teacher Education Council. (1995). A master plan for teacher education: 19952005. Teacher Education Council. Pasig City, Philippines.
UP National Institute for Science and Mathematics Education. (2001). The
science/education teaching and learning process in pre-service teacher
education programs of selected schools in Metro Manila. Quezon City:
EDRENET-UP-NISMED-DOST-SEI.
Wong-Fernandez, B. & Reyes, J. A. S. (2003) A review of research studies on the
pre-service teacher education systems in the Philippines. Technical Report
submitted to the Commission on Higher Education. Pasig City, Philippines.
Yanos, N.H. (1999). The pre-service preparation, subject-matter competence of
beginning teachers and student achievement in first year high school
mathematics: policy implementation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines.
TEDP Report, page 109
ANNEXES