There is a lesson every teacher knows by heart. Before changing the answers, make sure the lesson itself has been taught. Perhaps the Department of Education should return to that principle.
In recent years, Philippine basic education has been in constant motion. The MATATAG curriculum was launched to declutter competencies and strengthen foundational skills after alarming international assessments revealed the country’s learning crisis. It was, by all accounts, a reform born from necessity.
The problem was never the vision. It was the pace.
Last school year, schools across the country adjusted to the 45-minute class periods under the revised curriculum. Teachers rewrote lesson plans. School heads redesigned schedules. Students adapted to shorter discussions and compressed learning blocks.
Months later, the policy was revised. Schools were again granted flexibility to return to 50, 55, or 60 minute periods.
What had barely become familiar had to be learned again. And just as schools were beginning to regain their footing, another wave of change arrived.
Through DepEd Order No. 15, s. 2026, the department laid the groundwork for a three-term school year, a major departure from the traditional academic calendar that generations of Filipinos have grown up with. The proposal promises more efficient use of instructional time and better alignment with learning outcomes. These are noble goals.
But as classes began, several operational concerns and implementing mechanisms continue to evolve. Schools are once again adjusting while already moving.
Reform, after all, is difficult. Reforming while reforming is exhausting.
What troubles me most is not the changes themselves.
Education needs change.
PISA scores do not lie. Learning losses are real. Classrooms need innovation. Teachers deserve support. Students deserve better.
But good intentions do not automatically guarantee good implementation.
Because reforms are supposed to be tested before they are trusted. Pilot testing exists for a reason.
It allows weaknesses to surface before millions are affected. It provides teachers and administrators an opportunity to identify problems while the stakes remain manageable. It recognizes that policies may look perfect on paper yet unfold differently inside actual classrooms.
Yet many recent changes have left teachers and learners feeling as though they are discovering the flaws of these reforms at the same time they are expected to implement them.
A classroom should not become the place where unfinished policies are figured out.
Students are not prototypes. Teachers are not troubleshooters. And schools should not become laboratories where experiments are conducted in real time.
The irony is difficult to ignore.
The MATATAG curriculum seeks to reduce congestion and simplify learning. Yet many educators today are navigating changing time allotments, evolving schedules, new curriculum guides, and a three-term structure whose long-term effects are still largely unknown.
In trying to solve one crisis, we risk creating another—a crisis of uncertainty. Because learning thrives not only on innovation, but on stability. Roots do not grow deeper when they are constantly uprooted. Trust does not develop when directions change before people have had the chance to understand them. And confidence cannot flourish on shifting ground.
I do not doubt the sincerity of those behind these reforms. I believe the Department of Education wants to address a system that has struggled for decades. But urgency should not come at the expense of preparation.
Movement is not always progress. Sometimes, progress requires patience. Sometimes, reform requires restraint. And sometimes, the wisest thing policymakers can do is to let good ideas take root before planting new ones.
Because education is not software that can simply be updated every few months. It is a living system built on people—teachers who need time, students who need consistency, and schools that need direction.
Innovation is necessary. Reform is indispensable.
But before asking millions of learners and educators to adjust once again, perhaps we should remember another lesson every classroom teaches:
Before giving the test, make sure the lesson has been learned. And before changing the system, make sure the system is ready. Because a classroom is meant for learning—never for trial and error.
