Shift in school calendar faces lawmakers’ scrutiny

Lawmakers on the House Committee on Basic Education and Culture on Monday pressed the Department of Education (DepEd) over what they described as gaps in data, unclear computations, and weak contingency planning in the proposed shift to a three-term school calendar set for School Year 2026–2027.

Rep. Roman Romulo questioned DepEd officials on key figures underpinning the reform, stressing that its success would depend on accurate instructional time data and solid fallback mechanisms—both of which, he said, were unclear in current presentations.

The DepEd’s slide deck showed an estimated 172 days of classroom instruction, which falls short of the commonly cited 180-day benchmark for effective learning continuity. Romulo asked the agency to “clarify that” figure and verify its computations.

Without clearer data, lawmakers warned that schools could struggle to complete the required competencies, especially in areas frequently affected by weather-related class suspensions.

“What happens if there are no classes in between? They won’t be able to complete everything? It’s the students who will suffer,” Romulo said in Filipino.

The committee also scrutinized the DepEd’s Academic Recovery and Accessible Learning (ARAL) program which is designed to help students recover lost learning. Lawmakers questioned why its current design appears to prioritize early grade levels, particularly Grade 1, instead of covering learners across all year levels.

DepEd officials acknowledged the need for broader interventions but did not give firm commitments to expand the program’s scope.

Romulo also floated the idea of an eight-week recovery block for struggling learners, arguing that embedding remediation within regular class weeks may not be sufficient.

Tensions rose over the basis for certain structural elements of the calendar, including a proposed five-day remediation period. DepEd Assistant Secretary Janir TY Datukan admitted the duration was adopted for “practical” reasons rather than being grounded on specific research, drawing skepticism from the lawmakers.

The DepEd defended the three-term system as part of a broader reform package intended to maximize uninterrupted learning time and reduce disruptions for both teachers and students.

Still, the lawmakers insisted that clearer policy documentation, consistent data sets, and stronger contingency plans—particularly for weather-related interruptions—must be in place before the full schedule implementation.

The committee directed the DepEd to submit additional technical data on instructional time, learning competency targets, and the proposed remediation strategy.

The DepEd has cited past disruptions in defending the reform, noting that nearly 53 days of classroom instruction were lost in School Year 2023–2024 due to weather disturbances and non-instructional activities.

Under the proposed calendar, classes will begin in early June and be divided into three terms—June to September, September to December, and January to March. Each term is expected to include roughly 54 to 61 instructional days, with the aim of sustaining learning continuity through fewer interruptions.