Teachers’ organizations on Monday, March 23, expressed sharply contrasting positions on the planned three-term school calendar and three-grading period system of the Department of Education (DepEd), a major reform set to begin in School Year (SY) 2026–2027, with one group cautiously supportive and another strongly opposed.

In an earlier statement, DepEd reiterated its strong support for the Cabinet-approved shift to a three-term school calendar beginning SY 2026–2027.

DepEd stressed that the move places quality teaching and learning at the center of the school system by restructuring how instructional time is delivered throughout the academic year.

“This reform strategically addresses long-standing systemic inefficiencies, such as the documented loss of up to 53 school days in SY 2023–2024,” DepEd said. “By redesigning how time is structured in schools, the reform ensures learning,” it added.

READ: 

In a statement, the Teachers’ Dignity Coalition (TDC) said the proposed three-grading period system could help address long-standing issues in the school calendar, including the loss of instructional days due to disruptions and the failure to complete lessons toward the end of the school year.

“This reform must be pursued with clear planning, sufficient support, and meaningful participation from those on the ground,” the group said, stressing that teachers’ rights, welfare, and dignity must remain central to any policy change.

TDC noted that reorganizing the academic calendar may also create space for meaningful co-curricular and extracurricular activities, as well as mandated school celebrations.

The group added that the reform could streamline teachers’ administrative workload, particularly during end-of-quarter and year-end reporting, while allowing for more regular breaks to support teachers’ health and well-being.

However, TDC emphasized that these benefits hinge on DepEd’s implementation of critical preparatory measures.

Key recommendations include comprehensive pilot testing before rollout, ongoing consultations with stakeholders, updating school forms through efficient digital systems, and providing adequate learning materials.

“TDC remains committed to constructive engagement to ensure that policy changes are responsive and firmly grounded in the realities of our education system,” the group added.

In contrast, the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) Philippines, in a separate statement, strongly criticized the Marcos administration and its economic team for approving the three-term school calendar.

ACT described DepEd’s three-term calendar as a rushed and superficial reform that overlooks deeper systemic issues in education.

“Kaming mga guro at bata talaga ang kawawa sa pabago-bagong sistema sa Pilipinas, lalo kung panakip-butas, bara-bara, at minadali ang mga pagbabago (We teachers and students are the ones who truly suffer, especially when reforms are done haphazardly, rushed, and without proper planning),” ACT Chairperson Ruby Bernardo said.

ACT argued that public schools continue to struggle with severe shortages of classrooms, teachers, and learning resources—problems that the new calendar system does not resolve.

READ: 

The group also warned that the shift would impose additional burdens on educators, including recalibrating curricula, redesigning assessment systems, overhauling teaching materials, and adjusting grading frameworks—all allegedly without sufficient preparation, resources, or institutional support.

Bernardo said teachers and students would bear the brunt of rushed and poorly planned changes.

“Sa halip na pagaanin ang trabaho ng mga guro, tayo na naman ang magkukumahog para makaangkop sa sistemang sila-sila lang din ang nagpasya (Instead of easing teachers’ workload, we are once again left scrambling to adjust to a system decided without our participation),” she added.

Beyond opposing the calendar reform, ACT reiterated its long-standing demands, including a substantial increase in the education budget, a P50,000 entry-level salary for teachers, a P36,000 minimum salary for Salary Grade 1 workers, and an increase in the Personnel Economic Relief Allowance (PERA) from P2,000 to at least P5,000.

ACT argued that amid rising costs of living and economic uncertainty, the government should prioritize direct financial support for teachers and education workers rather than implementing what it described as “experimental” policy changes.

“What teachers and education workers need is not another experimental policy, but substantial salary increases and expanded benefits to cope with the worsening cost of living,” ACT said.

The contrasting positions of TDC and ACT highlight a broader debate over the effectiveness of calendar reforms in improving learning outcomes in Philippine basic education.

While some view the three-term system as a structural fix to time management and workload issues, others argue that it risks becoming a surface-level solution that leaves deeper problems—such as infrastructure gaps, teacher shortages, and underfunding—unaddressed.

As DepEd prepares for the rollout in SY 2026–2027, stakeholders such as teachers’ groups continue to call for careful planning, adequate resources, and meaningful consultation to ensure that any reform delivers tangible benefits for both teachers and learners.

RELATED STORY: