Mastery over mandate
Importantly, the law does not prohibit spiral progression. It simply removes it as the only approach prescribed by statute.
Text size
Importantly, the law does not prohibit spiral progression. It simply removes it as the only approach prescribed by statute.
On 2 August 2026, Republic Act 12322 (RA 12322) lapsed into law. It amends Section 5(g) of Republic Act 10533, or the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, which put the K to 12 program in place.
The amendment gives the Department of Education (DepEd) flexibility to determine the most effective approach to ensure mastery at each level of the basic education curriculum. Before RA 12322, DepEd was bound by law to use the “spiral progression approach.”
In simple terms, spiral progression means that a topic in science or math is taught briefly in one grade, then revisited the following year with greater depth, layer by layer, until students supposedly master it. Younger students, for instance, may first learn that plants need water and sunlight. In later grades, they return to the subject and study plant cells and photosynthesis.
The teaching method, associated with psychologist Jerome Bruner, is sound in theory. But findings of the Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM 2) revealed serious gaps. Teachers were sometimes forced to become generalists, handling subjects outside their specialization. Students, meanwhile, suffered from poor retention and weak foundational knowledge because subjects were not always taught with sufficient depth and concentration.
The problem becomes more troubling when viewed against our international performance. As the draft notes, the Philippines ranked near the bottom in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which measures the performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics, science and reading.
Against this backdrop, RA 12322 represents a significant shift in educational policy: from mastery by mandate to mastery by method.
Importantly, the law does not prohibit spiral progression. It simply removes it as the only approach prescribed by statute. This is consistent with the legislative intent expressed during Senate deliberations: spiral progression may still be used, but schools and teachers should have flexibility to employ the method best suited to ensuring mastery.
Thus, educators may adopt direct instruction, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, cooperative learning, blended learning, experiential learning or other approaches depending on their students’ needs. The objective is no longer fidelity to one teaching methodology. The measure of success is whether students actually learn and master the necessary knowledge and skills.
Flexibility, however, does not mean absence of accountability.
RA 12322 requires DepEd to undertake a comprehensive review of the curriculum and its chosen approach at least once every five years, following a systematic development process. This ensures that teaching methods remain responsive to evidence, changing circumstances and, most importantly, the needs of learners.
The reform is timely. EDCOM 2 itself recommended removing the mandatory application of spiral progression to permit greater flexibility and localized instruction.
Education cannot flourish under rigidity. What works for one subject, classroom or group of learners may not necessarily work for another. A law should set standards and demand results, but it need not dictate every method by which teachers achieve them.
At its core, RA 12322 recognizes a simple truth: The method must serve the learner, not the learner the method.
By giving educators room to teach according to evidence and classroom realities — while requiring periodic review and accountability — the law moves Philippine basic education toward what should always have been its ultimate goal: not merely covering the curriculum, but ensuring that every Filipino learner truly understands and masters it.
