Issues in Educational Research, 30(1), 2020 19

Filipino teachers’ experiences as curriculum policy

implementers in the evolving K to 12 landscape
Roxanne T. Bongco
Bataan Peninsula State University, Philippines
Adonis P. David
Philippine Normal University, Philippines

Basic education in the Philippines responded to the multiplicity of demands in its socio-
political, economic, technological, and academic spheres through various reforms, the
most large-scale of which is the K to 12 education program. This initiative changed many
facets of the curricular operations in Philippine classrooms which are supported by
policies. The changes that these curricular policies intend to achieve are shaped by the
teachers who are at the forefront of its implementation. Using a phenomenological
approach, this study investigates how five Filipino teachers implement these policies in
their classrooms. Findings reveal that teachers face a number of tensions that describe
their lived experience in making sense and operationalising curriculum policies in their
classroom: (1) confused yet appreciative; (2) frustrated yet flexible; and (3) powerless yet
vital. This study concludes with discussion about the success of curriculum
implementation depending largely on how teachers understand and implement
curriculum polices.

Introduction

Education is beset with multiplicity of changes and demands in its socio-political,
economic, technological and academic spheres, such as globalisation (Abulencia, 2015;
Misra, 2012), technological advances (Laal, 2013; Wikramanayake, 2015), a push for
egalitarian principles in the teaching profession (Bongco & Abenes, 2019; Coulter &
Greig, 2008), and transformative education (Bivens, Moriarty & Taylor, 2009; Bourn,
2016). These demands have pressed basic education to design itself in such a way that it
would be able to educate holistically developed, lifelong learners (Abisaki, 2015; Laal,
2013), who are equipped to thrive in the 21st century world (Rotherham & Willingham,
2009).

Philippine basic education (kindergarten, elementary, junior and senior high school)
responded to challenges in education with reforms (Barlongo, 2015), one of the largest
scale being the K to 12 Education Program, which started in 2012 (Orale & Uy, 2018) and
legitimised through Republic Act No. 10533 (Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013) and
Republic Act No. 10157 (Kindergarten Act of 2012). These initiatives were described by
the then secretary of the Department of Education, Armin Luistro as “the most
comprehensive basic education reform initiative ever done in the country since the
establishment of the public education system more than a century ago” (SEAMEO-
INNOTECH, 2012, p. iii). The reforms intended to reverse the decades of decline in
Philippine education and create a system that is both high-performing and inclusive (Sarvi,
Munger & Pillay, 2015).
20 Filipino teachers’ experiences as curriculum policy implementers in the evolving K to 12 landscape

The K to 12 Education Program changed many facets of the basic education system such
as its philosophy, structure, and curricula (Okabe, 2013). One can argue that more than
the “whats of teaching”, the K to 12 Program also altered its “hows”. These reforms are
very much evident in the changes in the different curricular activities such as lesson
planning, teaching and classroom management, and learning assessment. For instance, it is
notable that while there are materials that are easily downloadable for the teachers, the
Enhanced Basic Education Law promotes a relevant and culturally sensitive curriculum
which makes contextualisation a key feature of the new curriculum. Because of this,
teachers are expected to contextualise, indigenise, or localise the lessons as may be
necessary to ensure that the learning would be responsive to the needs of the students
(GovPH, 2013). Moreover, with the clamour for inclusivity (GovPH, 2013) and
recognition of diversity (DepEd, DO 42, s. 2017 - National Adoption and
Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers), differentiated
learning must be taken into consideration in the planning.

There are also related policies that affect teaching and classroom management in K to 12
classrooms. One of the most significant of these is the child protection policy (DepEd
Order 40, series of 2012) which seeks to protect “children in school from abuse, violence,
exploitation, discrimination, bullying, and other forms of abuse” (p.1). This policy affects
the manner by which classrooms should be managed by teachers. Moreover, with the
promotion of learner-centred teaching and constructivist learning, it is expected that the
teacher will provide opportunities for the learners to actively engage in the learning
process through interactive and collaborative activities. Student diversity also requires
differentiated teaching. In addition, teachers are expected to be gender sensitive (DepEd
Order 32. s. 2017) and inclusive.

Finally, with the new competency-based curriculum, assessment of learning became

focused on performance tasks (DepEd Order 8, series of 2015). Another aspect that
changed dramatically was the shift from student ranking to a new, criterion-based policy
on awards and recognition (DepEd Order 36, s. 2016). This order further promoted
holistic development as it moved away from focusing on academic achievement, and gave
equal recognition to a wide range of student achievements such as leadership and social
responsibility.

However, consideration has to be made on how these large-scale initiatives actually trickle
down to the individual classrooms, especially since curriculum implementation is
influenced by many factors, such as poor growth of a country's economy, politics, and
school leadership (Syomwene, 2013). Furthermore, Ornstein and Hunkins (2017)
indicated that people is one of the many factors that determine successful curriculum
implementation. Thus, the role of teachers in implementing these recent policies in the
classrooms is important. Teachers as the people in the frontline of curricular policy
implementation have a significant influence on how these changes disseminate to
individual classrooms.

Villena, Reyes and Dizon (2015) argued that teachers are the most important people in
curriculum implementation, while Vilches (2018) asserted that teachers are a major
Bongco & David 21

influence upon whether educational reforms will succeed, or not succeed. While teachers
had been viewed as technicians in the past, Fink (2000) asserted that teachers are more
than just passive implementers of change. Change is not something that the system does
to them, but something that must be accomplished along with the teachers. Vandeyar
(2017) further emphasised how change started “with the personal change of the teacher”
(p.373).

However, in spite of the key role that teachers play in curriculum implementation,
Ornstein and Hunkins (2017, p. 257) asserted that implementation fails on many
occasions because the “people factor” is often neglected, as education tends to focus so
much on modifications of the programs and processes. In the Philippine implementation
of the K to 12 curriculum, Vilches (2018) argued that the short and abrupt training left
many of the teachers confused with their new roles in the new curriculum. Specifically,
challenges that haunt teachers as they implement the new curriculum include: (1) the
evolving role of the teacher in the face of curriculum reform; (2) a mismatch between the
goals of the new curriculum and the realities of the local classrooms; and (3) flow of
communication and engagement (Vilches, 2018). Indeed, curriculum implementation is a
challenge among teachers, especially in terms of how they should implement curriculum
policy at the classroom level.

Therefore, this study was conducted to examine how Filipino teachers implement the new
curricular policies at the classroom level. Given the paradigm shift in Philippine basic
education classrooms brought about by the K to 12 Education Program, there is a need to
describe and understand the experiences of Filipino teachers as curricular policy
implementers. Adopting an emic perspective, the present study purported to answer the
central question,

What characterises Filipino teachers’ experiences as curriculum policy

implementers?

Method

Research design

This study employed a qualitative approach in order to explain the complexity of the
experiences of teachers in the implementation of curricular policies in the classroom
context. This approach amplifies the voices of teachers, who may not necessarily be
voiceless, but are sometimes ignored in the implementation process (Ornstein & Hunkins,
2017). Specifically, this study used a phenomenological approach which allows for the
exploration of the lived experiences of individuals by looking into the universal essence of
the said experiences (Creswell, 2007). The purpose of this approach is to illuminate the
layer of human experience of interest and search for the essences of the participants’
shared experiences (Streubert & Carpenter, 2011). The phenomenological design was
deemed most suitable for this study as it sought to investigate the teachers’ lived
experiences as they implemented curricular policies in their classrooms.
22 Filipino teachers’ experiences as curriculum policy implementers in the evolving K to 12 landscape

Selection site, criteria, and participants

This study focused its selection of participants on basic education teachers at the
elementary level in the division of Bataan, Philippines. Participants who were teaching in
different “Barangay” schools in the said division were selected, based on the following
inclusion criteria: (1) have taught in the basic education level for at least five years; and (2)
have experienced the transition from the former/old basic education curriculum to the
present K to 12 basic education curriculum. The latter criterion was important because
teachers would be better able to describe the challenges in implementing a new curriculum
policy if they had been teaching prior to the implementation of the new curricular
program. Table 1 summarises the profiles of the participants in this study.

Table 1: Profiles of research participants

Teaching
Partici- Teaching
Gender Age New Subjects/ classes
pants experience
Curriculum
P1 Female 26 5 years 2 years Grade 6: Values education, Technology
and livelihood education, Maths, Filipino,
Science
Grade 1: All subjects
P2 Male 29 8 years 2 years Grade 6: English, Maths, Social studies,
Values education, Music, Arts, Physical
education & Health
P3 Female 31 10 years 6 years Grade 2: All subjects
P4 Female 28 6 years 2 years Grade 4-6: English
Grade 6: Science, Social studies, Values
education, Technology and livelihood
education, Music, Arts, Physical
education & Health
P5 Female 29 8 years 3 years Grade 5: All subjects except Technology
and livelihood education

Data collection

A letter of invitation to participate in the study was sent to each of the five selected
teachers. The letter consisted of an explanation of the purpose and nature of the study.
The date and time of the interview were scheduled based on the participants’ convenience.
Further, a consent form was signed by the participants, with the assurance that their
participation would be private and confidential, and that their identity would remain
anonymous.

Prior to the conduct of the interview with the participants, the researchers surveyed the
curricular policies that had been issued by the Department of Education through DepEd
orders starting 2013 to 2018. The researchers came up with the list of relevant policies
which were used during the interview sessions with the participants. The participants were
requested to provide demographic information for profiling, along with the list of the
Bongco & David 23

curricular policies that they remembered implementing in their classrooms. The definition
of curricular policies, as used in the study was explained to guide the participants in their
responses. The list of curriculum policies from each participant was compared with the
researchers’ list in order to guide both the data collection and data analysis for the study.

Permission was sought from the participants for the first researcher to document the
interview session using an audio-recorder. Semi-structured, face to face interviews were
conducted with the participants. Sample key questions asked where: “How do you feel
about your role in the policy implementation process?” and “How did you adjust your
classroom operations to accommodate changes in the new policy?” Probing or follow-up
questions were asked, depending on the participants’ responses on the initial key
questions. All interview sessions lasted for less than an hour. A second interview session
was conducted online with three of the participants to clarify some of their responses
from the face to face interview, and to ask additional questions.

Analysis

While the interview questions were in English, the participants were allowed to respond in
both English and Filipino. Verbatim data from the interviews were transcribed. Responses
in Filipino were first translated to English prior to the coding process, which is considered
by Saldaǹa (2009) as an interpretive act. Afterwards, analysis was conducted on the
transcript in order to identify the significant statements for further coding, which could
include phrases, words (Factor, Matienzo & de Guzman, 2017) or longer statements. A
combination of descriptive and InVivo codes was used during the first cycle coding, which
generated 31 initial codes.

As trustworthiness is one of the qualities of a good qualitative research, the initial codes,
together with the translated significant statements, were sent back to the participants for
member checking. This was to determine if the codes that were generated would resonate
to the participants’ experiences (Birt, Scott, Cavers, Campbell & Walter, 2016).

After member checking to ensure that the codes are truly reflective of the intended
meanings and experiences of the participants, patterns among the codes were explored in
order to generate the themes (Factor, Matienzo & de Guzman, 2017). As similarity is one
of the patterns that could be a basis in pooling the codes together (Saldaǹa, 2009), similar
codes were grouped into themes which later became instrumental in understanding the
phenomenon of interest.

Findings

From the data that were gathered, three themes emerged, that seem to be tensions that the
Filipino teachers experienced. These themes collectively characterised the teachers’
experiences as curriculum policy implementers in the classroom: (1) Confused yet
appreciative; (2) Frustrated yet flexible; and (3) Powerless yet vital. The three themes are
discussed in detail in the succeeding paragraphs.
24 Filipino teachers’ experiences as curriculum policy implementers in the evolving K to 12 landscape

Confused yet appreciative

Information plays a crucial role in curricular policy development and implementation. It

had been observed, however that not all information that teachers hold about the
curricular policies is correct and thus may lead to confusion. For instance, it had been
observed that there are policies for which teachers are holding onto ‘inaccurate’ bits of
information. To cite an example: “… they would say that “no read, no pass” but that is against the
mass promotion” (P2). By “mass promotion” this participant was referring to an idea for
which the government does not have any written policy. However, it had been observed
that some of the proposed and implemented government systems (e.g. No Filipino child left
behind and the Philippine Education for All 2015 National Plan of Action) have been
misconstrued to mean recommending mass promotion of students (Orale & Uy, 2018),
regardless of the student’s failure to learn the required competencies.

Further, interviews with P1 and P2 showed misconceptions about the spiral curriculum
which led to dissatisfaction about the spiral progression feature, which is one critical new
feature of the K to 12 curriculum. All five participants shared the same belief that lesson
development is supposed to be deductively designed (i.e. teachers must begin the lesson
from the general ideas to the specific). This is in spite of the fact that spiral curriculum, as
an important feature of the new curriculum, expects that learners would have better
learning by presenting ideas from simple to complex, as learners build on their prior
knowledge to construct new understandings (Orale & Uy, 2018).

Interestingly, the participants implemented all policies that they ‘know about’, not only
because they are expected to, but also because they are positive that the policy changes are
important to enhance the quality of education. One participant was of the opinion that the
policies were, “…implemented in order to enhance the quality of education in the Philippines” (P5).
Another believed that these policies were drafted with “…our best interest in mind…” (P4).
Teachers were also confident that the Department in general shared the same goal of
ensuring what’s best for the learners. Participants have assured during the interview, “...
DepEd is really for the kids” (P3); “(Officials/ Heads) … would (rather) ask, did the kids learn?”
(P2).

This understanding and positive appreciation of the purposes of policy changes compels
teachers to take the initiative to link themselves to various channels of information that
are be necessary for the implementation of the curricular policy, such as the DepEd’s
website, colleagues, principal, and experts or resource persons in training and seminars. As
the teachers clarify their confusions or misunderstandings of the policies, they develop a
stronger appreciation of the new polices.

Frustrated yet flexible

Teachers shared frustrations over the inconsistency in the implementation of new

curricular policies. P2, for instance, imparted, “However, I was expecting that when it comes to
implementation, there would be uniformity.” Participants shared that when they get the chance to
talk with other teachers, that is the only time that they would realise that they have varied
Bongco & David 25

implementations of the same policy. As shared by one participant, “Sometimes when we talk
about it, we just discover that we have different implementations.” She further explained, “Sometimes,
even teachers coming from the same district would have different implementations” (P1).

However, in spite of the teachers’ desire for consistent implementation of the curricular
policies, they understood the need for flexibility in implementation. They believed that
contexts of the community, school, and their individual classrooms have to be taken into
consideration. All participants agreed that community plays a significant role in how the
policy would be implemented. For instance, P3 shared her adjustments with the DepEd
order 31, s. 2018, which intends to implement comprehensive sexuality education for
Filipino learners at all levels in basic education through curriculum that “protects and
promotes the rights of learners to health education, information, and care” (p.4) using appropriate
pedagogical approaches. P3 explained, “…we could not really implement it because of the area.
When we discuss sensitive topics, it could hurt someone in the community”. Because of this, she
shared that they tend to “lighten” the way by which sexuality education is integrated in the
curriculum in order to caution the community.

While the teachers recognise the policy interpretation by principals in the school context,
they also believe that teachers are still the ones who understand the classroom context
best. Hence, they believe that they should make decisions on how the policy will be
operationalised in their respective classrooms. As P2 asserted, “…the school head doesn't really
know what the classroom set up is… Since you, as a teacher, is the pilot inside your classroom, it would be
something for you to decide”.

Powerless yet vital

Being powerless is a common feeling that was shared by the participants. These feelings
appear to be coming from the belief that from the very start, (in the policy development)
their realities had already been missed. As one participant asserted, “I really wish that drafting
the policy is not only based on the concerns of the few. I really wish they would listen to the voice of those
teachers in the far flung areas” (P4). This feeling of being powerless continues to the
implementation phase, reinforced by their conviction that their beliefs hold no power in
the matter. As P4 shared, “… in the end, we still need to implement it”. P5 agreed to this,
claiming that “…I think, our opinion has no place in the implementation of the policy”.

Being powerless is also evident in the teachers’ lack of realisation on how their official
reports on the policy implementation could affect curricular policies. As emphasised by
teachers across the interviews, not all policies cover their contexts or situations. This made
it imperative for them to make necessary adjustments in its implementation in their
respective classrooms. However, it is notable that none of them report the adjustments
they need to make. P4 said, “When I make adjustments on the policy, I don't report this to the
officials during evaluations”. This reality was shared by P1 who assured that “It is only a local
arrangement within the school”. (P1) When asked if they ever raise their concerns regarding the
policies, P5 jokingly said, “Sometimes, in my head. Hahaha”.
26 Filipino teachers’ experiences as curriculum policy implementers in the evolving K to 12 landscape

P3, shared about having to make an official report, should she decide to make
adjustments, “…any changes that you would make has to be put into writing… that they do not know
anything about it.” It is quite apparent however that making such decision to report
alterations is not a welcome thought for the teachers. It seems that they are convinced
that they are always expected to follow the policies. As some of the participants have
shared, “And if ever we have any opinion, nothing would really change anyway... In the end, we are still
be obliged to follow them” (P5). “We still implement it because we are supposed to” (P4); “Because for as
long as they say that you've got to implement this, you could not change that” (P3).

In spite of such feelings of being powerless, it seems that teachers also believed that their
role in the policy implementation process could not be underestimated. As P5 shared,
“Our role is very important because we are the ones who provide the information, execute and implement
it.” P3 agreed with this, claiming that, “…we are the instrument to implement it and we deliver the
results... Whether or not the policy would be successful depends on how we implement it”.

Teachers see their roles as most vital in bringing about the changes that the policy intends
to achieve in their classrooms, as they are the ones who knew what the classroom context
really is. This feeling is reinforced with their school head’s recognition of this reality as
expressed in their support to the teachers’ decisions for necessary modifications in
implementation. For instance, one participant shared, “…My Ma’am (principal) told me to
manage my own time…” (P1). Another participant shared, “… (the modification) is okay for the
principal for as long as you are teaching… So it’s up to you. Even if the DLL (daily lesson log) says that
the kids has to multiply, but they still could not add, then, you could go on teaching addition. You will
make that decision as the teacher” (P2).

Discussion

The present study aimed to characterise Filipino teachers’ experiences in implementing

curriculum policies in their classrooms. The findings from the analysis identified three
tensions that collectively characterised their experiences as curriculum policy
implementers in their classrooms.

Confused yet appreciative

Information plays a crucial role in policy implementation. In a framework set forth by

Bhuyan et al. (2010), formulation and dissemination of policies is one of the seven
dimensions that affect implementation. It was emphasised that it is imperative for people
who will be responsible for its implementation to have a clear understanding of the policy.
For its part, the DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2015 (13 April, 2015) provided the guidelines on
the establishment of a policy development process at DepEd. The said document
stipulates that upon adoption, a policy shall be made public online through the DepEd
website and the Official Gazette, ensuring that it would be searchable.

However, teachers’ needs for information require more than accessibility of the
information. As revealed by the findings of this study, the sufficiency and quality of
information should also be a concern in the implementation of curricular policies. While
Bongco & David 27

previous literature tends to assume that implementers automatically understood the details
of the policy and therefore could automatically implement the said policy, if only they
would decide to do so, recent literature shows teachers as active thinkers in the
implementation process (Blackman, 2016).

Findings from the study conducted by Vilches (2018) on the experiences of one Filipino
teacher in implementing the K to 12 curriculum show that one of the challenges is the
flow of communication between different people and levels of the education system. The
researcher asserted that implementation of curricular change is not a ‘one shot’ event but a
continuous process. Changes do not happen overnight, and learning about the policy
implementation is not something that is completed once everyone has been ‘trained’
(p.34). Similarly, the teachers who participated in the present study seem to have started
from being confused about the policies, but their experiences from teaching in the new
curriculum allowed them to outgrow most, if not all of their initial confusions.

Significantly, teachers recognised the importance of the changes that are implemented
through the policies. This is consistent with the findings of Resurreccion and Adanza
(2015) which indicated that even though teachers found it hard to adapt to the spiral
approach of the new curriculum, they also recognised that the changes could help develop
learners into globally competitive and dynamic individuals. Hence, in spite of the
challenges, the teachers link themselves to various channels of information that are helpful
in the implementation of the curricular policies. This is in line with a new learning theory
in the age of technology development, connectivism. This theory asserts that with the new
context, ‘know-what and know-how’ are supplemented by ‘know-where’ which pertain to
the ability to locate sources for information needed. This theory emphasises that the ‘pipe’
is more important than what it contains, for when knowledge is required but unavailable,
the ability to plug into potential alternative sources becomes a vital skill (Siemens, 2005).
Furthermore, teachers engage actively in the process of comparisons and interactions with
other agents of implementation such as the students, the community, colleagues, and
school principal, to verify or refine their understanding of the information that they
obtained. Indeed, the teachers’ appreciation of the new curricular system and related
policies seems to have allowed them to become more motivated in learning more about
the policies, and how they should be implemented in their classrooms. This appreciation,
in spite of initial confusions, allowed teachers to feel and act capably when implementing
the new curricular policies in their classrooms.

Frustrated yet flexible

Teachers desire consistency in program implementation. They believe, however, that the
varied interpretations in the curricular policies present challenges. Also challenging are the
varied situational contexts that are needed to be taken into consideration by the teachers.
These appear to show that notwithstanding the sufficiency of information about the
curricular policy for implementation, variations in implementation would continue to
emerge. This is consistent with the assertions of Chaudhary (2015) that curriculum
implementation is affected by a diversity of factors such as the students, resource
28 Filipino teachers’ experiences as curriculum policy implementers in the evolving K to 12 landscape

materials and facilities, the teacher, the learning environment, culture and ideology,
instructional supervision and assessment.

Nevertheless, it is quite interesting to note that in spite of the teachers’ frustration over
lack of consistency in the implementation of the curricular policies, they also believe that
contexts call for flexibility in implementation. In many points of the interviews, teachers
recognised this reality. For one, teachers were very vocal in their assertions that many
classroom contexts have to be considered which compels them to make certain decisions
on how to implement the policies. As Fink (2000) put it, the policy initiators and
implementers are coming from different frames of reference. While the former sees the
learners as statistics, the latter sees them in a more specific light as complex and diverse
individuals. Similarly, Kimathi and Rusznyak (2018) asserted that part of professional
teaching is making judgements on a daily basis, based on teachers’ knowledge, as well as
their commitment to learners’ well-being which guides their actions.

Vilches (2018) asserted that more than the general frameworks of the curriculum,
teachers’ decisions are driven by a number of conditions in their learning milieu. These
realities to which the teachers have closer access, compels them to make flexible
adjustments to bridge the plan with the learners’ individual contexts. Further, Rivera
(2017) asserted that if there is one individual who understands the needs of the learners,
that person would be the teacher. This flexibility on the part of the teachers seems to have
emerged as they cope with the demands of curriculum implementation, in spite of the
frustrations brought about by challenges in the implementation.

Powerless yet vital

The feeling of being powerless is very much evident in the teachers’ submission to the
principal’s dissemination and interpretation of the policy in the school and in their failure
to see how their reports could effect change in the policy review. They see themselves as
mere actors expected to follow the script. Because of this, in spite of freedoms that the
new system offers them, teachers still grope around the changes in their roles. This
particular finding is consistent with the observation of Vilches (2018), that while the new
educational system changes the role of teachers into one that is more autonomous and
adaptive, teachers are not comfortable with such freedom.

It is notable that none of the adjustments made on the policy implementation and
concerns about these policies were actually reported by the teachers to their heads. While
they are aware of the possibility of making adjustments which have to be supported by
official reports, it had been observed how such notions are considered by teachers as
unwelcome thoughts, especially as they believe that they are only expected to comply.
While the Department of Education’s aims to establish a policy development process that
provides for systematic evidence-based and participatory mechanisms and procedures for
the formulation, adoption and review of policies (through DepEd Order No. 13, series of
2015), the teachers’ decision to keep their silence on their situations and concerns exposes
curricular policy development not only to the danger of what Fink (2000) warned as the
‘‘dialogue of the deaf’, but also, to the “dialogue of the mute”.
Bongco & David 29

Teachers’ discomfort and hesitation towards this freedom and power arises from many
factors. As Overton (2006) asserted, authoritarian perspectives dominates the overt power
relationships of the teachers’ work. The treatment they get is that of managerial control,
and they are positioned as subordinates who are expected to follow as instructed and
hence, lack a sense of control in their work. Being seen as one and the same things as their
work, which needed to be managed and controlled, results in the disempowerment of
teachers. Further, as noted by Bourn (2016), in spite of teachers supporting the idea of
their role as “vision creators” (p.68), their realities show challenges to these envisioned
roles. In contrast, the European Commission (2018) in its guiding principles on policy
asserted that teachers should be recognised as individuals who could be trusted and
should be empowered as contributors to the development of a school.

In spite of such feelings of being powerless, it was pleasant to know that teachers believe
in the central and critical role they play in the policy implementation process. The teachers
believed strongly that it is through them that the implementation process would succeed
or fail. This is consistent with the argument of Vilches (2018) that the classroom teacher
has the power to determine whether the educational reforms will succeed or not. In fact,
of all the people involved in the process of curriculum implementation, Villena, et al.
(2015) asserted that teachers are the most important agent. Indeed, due to the teachers’
vital role in the implementation process, many researchers have advocated for the
involvement of the teacher in the curriculum development process (Oloruntegbe, 2011;
Vilches, 2018).

Conclusion and recommendations

In the midst of multiple demands and changes surrounding education today, the
Philippine’s basic education initiated its own transformation through a number of
reforms. How these reforms will see the light of day in the classrooms is influenced by
teachers who are active implementers in the process. Findings from the present study
showed that the teachers’ role as curriculum policy implementers in their classrooms is
characterised by the experience of tensions. The three tensions identified in the present
study shows how teachers struggle, yet find ways to realise the goals of the change
initiative. The tensions are reflections of the reality that teachers continuously face
challenges but that they strive to adapt to the roles assigned to them by the reform. It
could be observed, however, that while some efforts yield positive experiences, other
aspects of the experience require an on-going support from the education system, if we
are to turn their challenges into the changes that we desire to achieve.

Indeed, in-service training from the DepEd should be stronger and more developmental
in nature, in order to facilitate the adaptation of Filipino teachers to the new curriculum,
whereas pre-service education should be re-calibrated in order to purposively develop
teacher education students who are capable and highly competent to perform their tasks
and responsibilities in the K to 12 framework. Moreover, there is also a need for school
principals and other school leaders to be further supported as they themselves are
curriculum implementers. As school leaders and instructional supervisors, the way
30 Filipino teachers’ experiences as curriculum policy implementers in the evolving K to 12 landscape

principals communicate and translate curriculum polices to their teachers will strongly
affect how teachers implement the policies and teach in the classroom. Similarly, it is also
vital that teacher understand how basic education recognises their power in promoting
change so that they would find the confidence to give voice to their concerns. While it is
true that different contexts mean different interpretations of the policies, the teachers’
concerns regarding their experiences in policy implementations has to be reported
officially. This will facilitate a two way communication providing a genuine evaluation of
the curricular policies, thus addressing the danger of engaging with the “dialogue of the
mute”.

While this study has documented the realities of Filipino teachers as curriculum policy
implementers, readers should take the findings with caution for two reasons. First, the
participants in the study were recruited from just one division in one province from the
Philippines. It is plausible that basic education teachers from a particular division or
province have a context that is not representative of the overall population of public
school teachers. Therefore, the findings or insights acquired from the findings cannot be
generalised as true for all teachers in the country. Second, curriculum policy
implementation in the study was operationalised in a broad way and the researchers did
not attempt to examine it in light of the teachers’ actual pedagogy in the classroom and
how the policies may have shaped their choice of specific instructional or assessment
strategies in the classroom.

Nevertheless, notwithstanding these limitations, the findings advance the literature on

Filipino teachers’ experiences in the implementation of the K to 12 curriculum by
providing a description of how a select group of Filipino teachers make sense of their
experiences as curriculum policy implementers. Hence, our understanding of Filipino
teachers in this time of curricular and educational reforms may further expand through
the conduct of similar studies on Filipino teachers’ cognitions, motivations, and actions in
the implementation of curriculum programs and policies. For instance, a quantitative
study that could take into account the views and experiences of significantly higher sample
of Filipino teachers in implementing curriculum policies could complement the findings
of the present study.

This study concludes with the idea that the success of curriculum implementation depends
largely on how teachers understand and implement curriculum polices. Therefore,
emphasis must be given to making it certain that our teachers are provided with the
resources and support that they need in order to traverse a world that they are only
starting to learn to live in.

References

Abisaki (2015). Education for development: Towards a holistic approach to curriculum

implementation in Kenya. Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science, 3(6), 59-63.
http://www.questjournals.org/jrhss/papers/vol3-issue6/K365963.pdf
Bongco & David 31

Abulencia, A. S. (2015). The unraveling of K-12 Program as an education reform in the

Philippines. Sipatahoenan: South-East Asian Journal for Youth, Sports & Health Education,
1(2), 229-240.
http://journals.mindamas.com/index.php/sipatahoenan/article/view/689
Barlongo, C. J. (2015). Reforms in the Philippine education system: The K to 12 Program.
Business Mirror, 26 May. https://businessmirror.com.ph/reforms-in-the-philippine-
education-system-the-k-to-12-program/
Bhuyan, A., Jorgensen, A. & Sharma, S. (2010). Taking the pulse of policy: The policy
implementation assessment tool. Washington, DC: Futures Group, Health Policy Initiative,
Task Order 1.
http://www.healthpolicyplus.com/archive/ns/pubs/hpi/1155_1_PIAT_Paper_Takin
g_the_Pulse_of_Policy_acc.pdf
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C. & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool
to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research,
26(13), 1802-1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Bivens, F., Moriarty, K. & Taylor, P. (2009). Transformative education and its potential
for changing the lives of children in disempowering contexts. IDS Bulletin, 40(1), 97-
108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2009.00014.x
Blackman, H. W. (2016). Teacher sense-making: A case study of the implementation of the Giffin
model. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2194
Bongco, R. T. & Abenes, R. D. (2019). Clash of spheres - the paradox of being a female
teacher in the Philippines. Beijing International Review of Education, 1(2-3).443-459.
https://doi.org/10.1163/25902539-00102012
Bourn, D. (2016). Teachers as agents of social change. International Journal of Development
Education and Global Learning, 7(3) 63-77.
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1475774/1/5.%20Bourn_Teachers%20as%20ag
ents[1].pdf
Chaudhary, G. K. (2015). Factors affecting curriculum implementation for students.
International Journal of Applied Research, 1(12), 984-986.
http://www.allresearchjournal.com/archives/2015/vol1issue12/PartN/2-5-158-343.pdf
Coulter, R. P. & Greig, C. J. (2008). The man question in teaching: An historical overview.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(4), 420-443.
https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/view/55248
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.
DepEd (2012). DepEd order 40, s. 2012.DepEd child protection policy.
https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/DO_s2012_40.pdf
DepEd (2015, 13 April). DepEd order 13, s. 2015 . Establishment of a policy development process at
the Department of Education. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2015/04/13/do-13-s-2015-
establishment-of-a-policy-development-process-at-the-department-of-education/
DepEd (2015, 1 April). DepEd order No. 8, s. 2015. Policy guidelines on classroom assessment for
the K to 12 basic education program. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2015/04/01/do-8-s-2015-
policy-guidelines-on-classroom-assessment-for-the-k-to-12-basic-education-program/
DepEd (2016). DepEd order 36, s. 2016. Policy guidelines on awards and recognition for the K to 12
basic education program. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/06/07/do-36-s-2016-policy-
guidelines-on-awards-and-recognition-for-the-k-to12-basic-education-program-2/
32 Filipino teachers’ experiences as curriculum policy implementers in the evolving K to 12 landscape

DepEd (2017, 29 June) DepEd order 32, s. 2017. Gender-responsive basic education policy.
https://www.deped.gov.ph/2017/06/29/do-32-s-2017-gender-responsive-basic-
education-policy/
DepEd (2017, 11 August). DepEd order 42, s. 2017. National adoption and implementation of the
Philippine professional standards for teachers. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2017/08/11/do-
42-s-2017-national-adoption-and-implementation-of-the-philippine-professional-
standards-for-teachers/
DepEd. (2018). DepEd order 31, s. 2018. Policy guidelines on the implementation of the
comprehensive sexuality education. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2018/07/13/do-31-s-2018-
policy-guidelines-on-the-implementation-of-the-comprehensive-sexuality-education/
DepEd (n.d.). K to 12 Features. Department of Education.
http://www.deped.gov.ph/k-to-12/about/features/
European Commission (2018). Teachers and school leaders in schools as learning organisations:
Guiding principles for policy development in school education. ET 2020 Working Groups.
https://www.schooleducationgateway.eu/downloads/Governance/2018-wgs4-
learning-organisations_en.pdf
Factor, E. M., Matienzo, E. T. & de Guzman, A. B. (2017). A square peg in a round hole:
Theory-practice gap from the lens of Filipino student nurses. Nurse Education Today, 57,
82-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.07.004
Fink, D. (2000). The two solitudes: Policy makers and policy implementers: Implications
for leaders. In Annual Conference of the British Educational Management and Administration
Society. Bristol. https://sustainability.terc.edu/index/page/494.html
GovPH (2013). Republic Act No. 10533. Official Gazette, 15 May.
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2013/05/15/republic-act-no-10533/
Kimathi, F. & Rusznyak, L. (2018). Advancing professional teaching in South Africa:
Lessons learnt from policy frameworks that have regulated teachers’ work. Education as
Change, 22(3), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.25159/1947-9417/4042
Laal, M. (2013). Lifelong learning and technology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83,
980-984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.182
Misra, S. (2012). Implications of globalization on education. Romanian Journal for
Multidimensional Education, 4(2), 69-82.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1800740
Okabe, M. (2013). Where does Philippine education go? The "K to 12" program and
reform of Philippine basic education. IDE discussion paper no. 425. Institute of
Developing Economies.
http://www.ide.go.jp/library/English/Publish/Download/Dp/pdf/425.pdf
Oloruntegbe, K. (2011). Teachers’ involvement, commitment and innovativeness in
curriculum development and implementation. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational
Research and Policy Studies, 2(6), 443-449.
http://www.jeteraps.scholarlinkresearch.com/articles/TEACHERS%20INVOLVEMENT,%2
0COMMITMENT%20AND%20INNOVATIVENESS%20IN%20CURRICULUM%20DEV
ELOPMENT%20AND%20IMPLEMENTATION.pdf
Orale, R. L. & Uy, E. A. (2018). When the spiral is broken: Problem analysis in the
implementation of spiral progression approach in teaching mathematics. Journal of
Academic Research, 3(3), 14-24. http://jar.ssu.edu.ph/index.php/JAR/article/view/8
Bongco & David 33

Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (2017). Curriculum, foundations, principles, and issues. 7th ed.
Singapore: Pearson.
Overton, J. (2006). Teacher identity and power relationships in contexts of change: A case study of
teachers. PhD thesis, Charles Darwin University.
https://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717&context=educ_pubs
Resurreccion, J. A. & Adanza, J. (2015). Spiral progression approach in teaching science in
selected private and public schools in Cavite. DLSU Research Congress 2015, De La Salle
University, Manila, Philippines, 2-4 March 2015. http://docplayer.net/29477390-
Spiral-progression-approach-in-teaching-science-in-selected-private-and-public-
schools-in-cavite.html
Rivera, J. G. (2017). Articulating the foundations of Philippine K to 12 Curriculum:
Learner-centeredness. AsTEN Journal of Teacher Education. 2(1) 59-70.
Rotherham, A. J. & Willingham, D. (2009). 21st century skills: The challenges ahead.
Educational Leadership, 67(1) 16-21. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/sept09/vol67/num01/21st-Century-Skills@-The-Challenges-Ahead.aspx
Saldaǹa, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE.
https://au.sagepub.com/en-gb/oce/the-coding-manual-for-qualitative-
researchers/book243616
Sarvi, J., Munger, F. & Pillay, H. (2015). Transitions to K–12 education systems Experiences from
five case countries. Asian Development Bank. Mandaluyong City.
https://www.adb.org/publications/transitions-k-12-education-systems-five-case-countries
SEAMEO-INNOTECH (2012). K to 12 Toolkit: Resource guide for teacher educators, school
administrators and teachers.
http://www.seameo-innotech.org/eNews/Kto12Toolkit_ao17july2012.pdf
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal
of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.87.3793
Streubert, H. J. & Carpenter, D. R. (2011). Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the
humanistic imperative, 5th ed. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins
Syomwene, A. (2013). Factors affecting teachers’ implementation of curriculum reforms
and educational policies in schools: The Kenyan experience. Journal of Education and
Practice, 4(22), 80-86. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/8330
Vandeyar, S. (2017). The teacher as an agent of meaningful educational change. Educational
Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(2), 373-393.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1147491.pdf
Vilches, M. L. (2018). Involving teachers in the change process: One English language
teacher’s account of implementing curricular change in Philippine basic education. In
M. Wedell & L. Grassick, International perspectives on teachers living with curriculum change (pp.
15-37). UK. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/978-1-137-54309-7_2
Villena, D. K. & Dizon, E. (2015). Curriculum development. Quezon City: Adriana Publishing
Co. Inc.
Wikramanayake, G. (2005). Impact of digital technology on education. 24th National
Information Technology Conference, August 2005.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216361364_Impact_of_Digital_Technolog
y_on_Education
34 Filipino teachers’ experiences as curriculum policy implementers in the evolving K to 12 landscape

Roxanne T. Bongco is a faculty member of the College of Education at the Bataan

Peninsula State University. She is currently working on her dissertation for a PhD in
curriculum and instruction at the Philippine Normal University. Her current research
interests include feminism, intergenerational diversity, curriculum, and teacher education.
Email: roxanne_bongco@yahoo.com

Adonis P. David (corresponding author) is Professor of Psychology and the Director of

the Graduate Research Office in the Philippine Normal University. His current research
interests are on the role of social beliefs and executive functioning on the achievement
and adjustment of Filipino learners.
Email: david.ap@pnu.edu.ph

Please cite as: Bongco, R. T. & David, A. P. (2020). Filipino teachers’ experiences as
curriculum policy implementers in the evolving K to 12 landscape. Issues in Educational
Research, 30(1), 19-34. http://www.iier.org.au/iier30/bongco.pdf