Weekly Submission and Approval of Lesson Plans are Not DepEd Policy

Weekly Submission and Approval of Lesson Plans Are Not DepEd Policy

The heavy folders, long lines at the Principal’s office, and Sunday night anxiety over printing—these have become the "hidden curriculum" for many Filipino teachers. However, a closer look at the guidelines reveals that the weekly "checking" and "approval" ritual is more a matter of habit than a matter of law.

Based on DepEd Order 42, s. 2016 (Policy Guidelines on Daily Lesson Preparation for the K to 12 Basic Education Program), the traditional "Weekly Submission" for "Approval" lacks a legal basis at the national level.

1. The RPMS Cycle vs. The Weekly Calendar

The most significant evidence is found in Section VII, Paragraph 56 of the policy:

"Compliance with DLP and DLL preparation shall be monitored following the RPMS cycle."

The policy does not say "monitored every Friday" or "submitted every Monday." By anchoring monitoring to the RPMS Cycle, the mandate aligns lesson plan checking with key performance milestones—such as Classroom Observations (CO) and the final portfolio review.

The goal is to ensure that teachers are prepared for the entire rating period, not to create a weekly administrative hurdle that disrupts actual teaching.

2. Monitoring Is Not Approval

There is a fundamental difference between a School Head monitoring a document and approving it.

Approval implies that a teacher—a licensed professional—needs permission to execute their lesson.

Monitoring implies oversight and support.

DepEd Order 42, s. 2016 recognizes professional autonomy. The teacher is the expert in their classroom. The School Head’s role is to verify that a plan exists and to provide technical assistance, not to act as a "gatekeeper" who must sign off before a lesson can be taught.

3. The Role of "Checked By" and Technical Assistance

While "Checked By" is often used as a localized tool for accountability, it should not be a weekly hurdle. If a Master Teacher or School Head checks a DLL, it should be to provide Technical Assistance, such as:

"I noticed in your plan that your activity might take too long. Let’s adjust the timing to hit your objective."

If the checking is merely to see if a signature is present, it contradicts the policy’s goal: to reduce clerical work. The signature is not the prize; the feedback and the resulting improvement in instruction are what matter.

4. Absence of "Signature Lines" in National Templates

If you examine the Annexes and Templates provided in DO 42, s. 2016, you will notice a striking detail: The official forms do not include signature lines for "Checked by" or "Approved by."

The focus of the national mandate is on the content and reflection within the lesson plan. The requirement for signatures is often a localized "tradition" or a Division-level requirement added for tracking purposes, but it is not a requirement set by the National Policy.

5. The Mandate to Reduce Clerical Burden

One of the primary reasons for the 2016 policy was to minimize clerical work for teachers.

* Weekly submission forces teachers to prioritize "looking compliant" over actually "being prepared."

* It consumes hours of printing and administrative time that should be spent on learner feedback and instructional materials.

When we insist on weekly checking, we prioritize the paper trail over the actual learning process.

The Verdict: Professionalism Over Paperwork

The belief that DLLs/DLPs must be submitted and approved weekly is a misconception. While School Heads have the authority to monitor their teachers, the national mandate emphasizes that this should be a supportive process integrated into the RPMS cycle, rather than a weekly bureaucratic requirement.

It is time to shift the focus from the signature on the folder to the quality of instruction in the classroom. As professionals, teachers are mandated to plan, but they should not be burdened by non-existent requirements that hinder their primary goal: to teach.