EDITORIAL | The Department of Experimentation

The ink on the MATATAG Curriculum is barely dry, yet the Department of Education (DepEd) has already prepared for its next experiment: the three-term school calendar. 

Under DepEd Order No. 9, series of 2026, the traditional four-quarter system will be replaced in favour of a three-term structure starting in School Year 2026-2027. While the government sugarcoats this as a “strategic move” to protect teaching and learning time of the teachers and students who are on the front lines, it feels like another trap, a destabilizing shift in an education system that has become a laboratory.

The justification of DepEd for this overhaul is the alarming loss of learning days in the school year. According to EDCOM 2, in the 2023-2024 year alone, 53 teaching days, which is equivalent to an entire quarter, were lost to class suspensions due to calamities, extreme heat indices, and more than 155 mandated celebrations and contests. This data speaks to the gaps in continuity of instruction. With the new calendar, running from June 8, 2026, to April 8, 2027, it aims to “reclaim” the lost time by dividing the school year into three instructional blocks. DepEd officials claim this will allow students to engage more deeply with lessons while reducing the non-teaching-related tasks that currently burden the teachers. 

They believe that rearranging the calendar is a substitute for solving this systematic loss. But it is not as simple as that.

Groups like the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) and the Teacher’s Dignity Coalition (TDC) have pointed out that “you don’t fix literacy and learning gaps by rearranging the calendar while leaving the real problems untouched”. This is undeniably true because reforms are good, but they must be carefully tested and grounded in evidence and research. They are ignoring the real problems here, including the overcrowded classrooms, the lack of quality textbooks, and a chronic shortage of chairs.

Furthermore, there is a staggering mismatch between the teacher specializations and the subjects they handle, with data showing that 98% of the Physical Science teachers are teaching outside of their area of expertise. These problems are not new, yet somehow it is still neglected. So how can DepEd claim that this strategy improves learning outcomes when there are persisting broader educational problems to be resolved first? 

The cost of this constant experimentation is numerous. Teachers are already overstretched and overworked, but they are now expected to adapt to a new three-term framework without a pilot study to prove that this is an effective way to address learning gaps. This transition is not just a minor change because it directly affects the stakeholders.

While DepEd claims that there is no added cost to the parents because they are simply reorganizing, they are dismissing the exhaustion of the workforce and students being treated as guinea pigs for every new whim of the administration.

If DepEd truly wants to defend the 180-day instructional calendar, it should focus on hiring administrative assistants to help teachers and providing a concrete contingency plan for suspensions rather than just changing the dates on the calendar. Educational reforms are beneficial, but it requires stability and consultation to its stakeholders, not a series of experiments that leave the most vulnerable stakeholders to deal with the fallout if this implementation is a failure. 

Although DepEd holds the mandate for curriculum, students, and teachers, it is unfair to blame them for every failure when their powers are limited. The reality is that broader educational problems are beyond calendar shifts; it requires coordination with various agencies, such as sufficient classrooms by the DPWH, school feeding programs from the LGUs, or even financial assistance for struggling families, which is the domain of the DSWD.  It is time for the government to stop experimenting on teachers and start building a unified front to ensure that every Filipino student is truly ready for the future.

References:

Cariaso, Bella. “No Added Cost for 3-Term School Calendar – DepEd.” Philstar.com, 21 Apr. 2026,www.philstar.com/headlines/2026/04/22/2522687/no-added-cost-3-term-school-calendar-deped. Accessed 2 May 2026.

Communications, EDCOM 2. “EDCOM 2 to DepEd: Protect 180 Instructional Days in Proposed Three-Term Calendar Shift.” EDCOM 2, 4 Mar. 2026, edcom2.gov.ph/edcom-2-to-deped-protect-180-instructional-days-in-proposed-three-term-calendar-shift/. Accessed 2 May 2026.

Orcio, Francis. “DepEd: School Year 2026-2027 to Start on June 8 | ABS-CBN News.” ABS-CBN, 20 Apr. 2026, http://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/4/20/deped-school-year-2026-2027-to-start-on-june-8-1510. Accessed 2 May 2026.

Pechay, Isabelle. “DepEd Defends Shift to 3-Term School Calendar but Teachers Have Doubts.” INQUIRER.net, Mar. 2026, newsinfo.inquirer.net/2200180/deped-defends-shift-to-3-term-school-calendar-but-teachers-have-doubts-2. Accessed 2 May 2026.