By By Rep. Antonio Tinio
ACT Teachers Party-list
We have raised serious concerns over the Department of Education’s (DepEd) proposed shift to a three-semester (trisem) school calendar. The plan’s 10-day end-of-term block unrealistically crams multiple major requirements into a very short period — setting up schools, teachers, and learners for rushed compliance, greater workload, and weaker learning support.
The proposal creates a 10-day end-of-term block where DepEd wants to fit nearly everything at once. You cannot squeeze remedial learning, grading and paperwork, co-curricular activities, report distribution, teacher training, and wellness breaks into ten days without sacrificing quality and without overburdening teachers.
DepEd’s own end-of-term schedule attempts to compress the following into a single 10-day window:
- Academic Recovery and Accessible Learning (ARAL) Program implementation
- Computation of grades and completion of school forms
- Co-curricular and extracurricular activities
- Distribution of progress/performance reports
- In-service training for teachers
- Wellness break for learners
- Wellness break for teachers
Pinagkakasya sa sampung araw ang ARAL, grading at school forms, activities, release ng report cards, In-Service Training (INSET), at wellness break. Hindi makatotohanan ito. Sa dulo, guro ang mabibigatan at bata ang mawawalan ng de-kalidad na suporta.
The set-up risks turning “wellness breaks” into paper breaks only, as teachers are pressured to finish grading, accomplish forms, attend trainings, and comply with multiple end-of-term deliverables — while also being tasked to implement learning interventions.
If DepEd wants wellness, it must protect actual time and reduce load — not rename overloaded days as ‘wellness breaks.’”
The proposed calendar fails to address the core problem of insufficient learning time. Under the proposed three-term setup, total contact time between teachers and learners will only be around 173 days. This does not solve the learning crisis; it institutionalizes reduced instructional time and normalizes learning loss.
The Department has not presented a single pilot study demonstrating that shifting to a three-term calendar is an effective intervention to address learning gaps. How can we gamble with our children’s future based on a mere hunch, especially when shortages in classrooms, seats, textbooks, and other basic resources remain persistent?
Walang siyentipikong basehan ang panukalang ito. Ipinapalit ng DepEd ang tunay na solusyon sa mga kakulangan sa mga silid-aralan at kagamitan ng isang eksperimento sa kalendaryo na walang pinatunayan.
There is a lack of meaningful consultation with major teachers’ organizations and unions before the policy was floated, noting that changes of this scale cannot be imposed top-down and then forced onto schools to implement on the ground.
Hindi puwedeng bigla na lang ibababa ang ganitong kalaking pagbabago at ipapasa sa mga paaralan ang problema ng pagpapatupad. Dapat nakonsulta ang mga pangunahing organisasyon at unyon ng mga guro, kabilang ang ACT NCR Union at iba pang kinatawan ng rank-and-file.
We urge DepEd to pause any rushed rollout, present the evidence base for the proposal, and open genuine consultations with teachers and education workers, especially on workload impacts and the feasibility of the end-of-term requirements.
Reforms should help teachers teach and learners learn. A calendar that compresses essential tasks into an unworkable 10-day block and cuts down contact time without evidence will only deepen the education crisis.
