#deped

“Two Tracks, One Future?”

The Department of Education’s Strengthened Senior High School (SHS) Program — which replaces the familiar strands (STEM, HUMSS, ABM, AFA, GAS, and TVL sub-strands) with just two pathways (Academic and Technical-Professional / “TechPro”) and a trimmed set of core subjects — is being piloted for SY 2025–2026 and rolled out in selected schools. On paper the move promises clarity, less subject congestion, and better industry links. In practice, however, it risks weakening specialization, muddying college-prep signals, and shifting costs and complexity onto schools and families that can least afford it. Below I explain why this reform deserves a hard second look.

What exactly is changing?

Key, confirmed details from DepEd’s official issuances and shaping papers:

• The SHS program will pilot a transition from four tracks (Academic, Tech-Voc/TVL, Arts & Design, Sports) and many fixed strands to two primary pathways: Academic and Technical-Professional (TechPro). Schools will offer clusters of electives aligned to those pathways instead of fixed strands. Core subjects are reduced to a smaller set of integrative courses offered across the year. The policy is being piloted in Grade 11 for SY 2025–2026 in selected schools.

• DepEd frames the change as simplification: fewer overlapping core subjects, more electives (organized into clusters), stronger work immersion / industry links, and more flexible student choice within electives. The official guidance emphasizes career guidance tools and prioritizing electives according to each school’s capacity.

Why some of the rhetoric sounds good — and why it isn’t enough

There are legitimate problems in the current SHS model: an overly congested curriculum, variation in how strands are offered across schools, and weak industry linkages that produce graduates with certificates but limited employability gains. DepEd cites research and consultation in arguing reforms are needed. Trimming unnecessary content and strengthening immersion are sound goals.

But good intentions don’t automatically translate into good outcomes. The devil — as always — lies in the implementation.

The biggest problems this reform creates (or fails to fix)

1. Loss of clear specialization and signaling

Strands — for all their problems — gave students and universities (and employers) a clear signal: a student came from STEM or HUMSS or ABM. Conflating those into a single “Academic” pathway with elective clusters may blur the meaningful differences in preparation for highly selective college courses (engineering, medicine, accountancy) or for specialized arts programs. Elective clusters sound flexible, but flexibility can mean inconsistency: two students labeled “Academic” from different schools may have wildly different preparation. That hurts students applying to college and universities trying to evaluate readiness.

2. STEM pipeline at risk

The new list of prioritized core subjects scales back semesterized content and promises science electives — but with elective status, not guaranteed sequential discipline exposure for all Academic students. If Physics, Chemistry, or advanced Math become optional electives in many schools, students interested in STEM degrees will be disadvantaged unless their school explicitly offers and resources those electives — which many schools may not be able to do. This is especially acute for public and rural schools. The SHS shaping paper itself notes uneven gains from SHS graduates in the labor market, but the proposed simplification could undercut the pipeline that feeds STEM degrees and technical higher education unless paired with strong, resourced implementation.

3. Unequal capacity and an unfunded mandate

DepEd will let school heads decide which electives to offer, guided by teacher availability, facilities, and minimum learner numbers. But that precisely magnifies inequality: richer urban schools and private schools will continue to offer Tier 1 and Tier 2 electives (and thus keep giving choices to students), while many public, small, and rural schools will be limited to a thin menu — or none at all. Pilot selection criteria even listed “sufficiency of teachers” and facilities as reasons for choosing pilot schools, showing DepEd knows capacity matters — yet the program depends heavily on schools fixing those gaps locally. Without substantial, targeted funding and teacher deployment, the change will widen disparities.

4. Risk to early career/TVET pathways if TechPro is not fully resourced

The renamed and consolidated TechPro track promises NC II and work immersion alignment. But the TVL/TechPro track historically suffers from uneven quality of training, limited industry accreditation, and weak apprenticeship pipelines. If TechPro becomes a catch-all category with diluted content (to fit schools’ capacities), graduates could leave SHS with certificates that local employers do not recognize — repeating past mistakes. The pilot design and DepEd’s insistence on industry linkages are positive, but they must be matched by real partnerships, assessment capacity, and local enterprise engagement.

5. Student voice and transition costs

Parents, guidance counselors, and students need real, localized career guidance to make elective choices that still keep future options open. DepEd points to the NCAE and other tools, but scaling quality guidance counselors across thousands of schools is costly and time-consuming. Families may incur out-of-pocket costs (transport, materials, private tutoring) if their school lacks an elective they want — and altered elective availability could force students to shift tracks mid-course, disrupting progression.

So what should DepEd (and policy-makers) do instead — practical fixes

• Guarantee a baseline for specialization. Require that a minimum, sequential set of science/math electives be available regionally (through shared classes, cluster schools, blended delivery) to protect the STEM pipeline.

• Fund and deploy specialized teachers (especially science/math and TechPro assessors) as part of the rollout — not leave it to local schools alone.

• Mandate and fund strong industry partnerships with clear KPIs (hiring pathways, apprenticeship placements, NC accreditation) so TechPro certificates mean something to employers.

• Monitor equity outcomes during the pilot and publish disaggregated results (by region, urban/rural, public/private) before national scaling. The pilot offers an opportunity to correct course — use it.

Simplifying a clunky, overcrowded curriculum is a defensible aim. But replacing meaningful specialization with nominal flexibility — without the funding, teacher deployment, and regional guarantees to back it — risks producing an SHS that is simpler on paper but harder for students to use as a launchpad into college, technical careers, or decent jobs. If DepEd wants this to be more than a headline, it must back words with resources, enforce minimums for specialist offerings, and be transparent about where (and why) the pilot succeeds or fails. Otherwise, we’ll have traded strands for ambiguity — and that ambiguity will hit the poorest students first.

References & further reading

• DepEd — announcement of public consultation for Strengthened SHS curriculum (April 2025)

• DepEd — the “Enclosure to DepEd Memorandum No. 048, s. 2025”: Pilot Implementation of Strengthened SHS Curriculum for Grade 11 SY 2025–2026

• PIDS / news summary of DepEd rollout of new Senior High curriculum

• GMA News — DepEd sets online public consultation for revised SHS curriculum

• GMA News — DepEd: 841 schools to join pilot run of revised SHS curriculum

• Philippine News Agency — Senate panel backs SHS overhaul as DepEd unveils reform plan

• GMA / reporting on concerns by senator Sherwin Gatchalian about reducing SHS tracks and shifting electives

• PIA (Philippine Information Agency) — DepEd highlights ‘strengthened’ senior high school curriculum

As a high school student nearing the end of my Senior High School journey, I’ve heard a lot of discussion about the new Senior High School Curriculum. It’s supposed to be an improvement, making our education better. However, people have very mixed feelings, some are genuinely excited about the changes, while others are quite worried. From my perspective, it seems like a blend of excellent ideas and significant real-world challenges.

Certainly, the most encouraging feature of this updated curriculum is its goal to reduce the academic workload of students. In the previous system, many of us felt overwhelmed by a massive number of subjects and task that left us feeling buried. This often led to stress and burnout. By reducing the number of subjects, the new curriculum aims to provide a more manageable and healthier learning environment for teenagers. This intention to make education less stressful and more focused on core skills is the most encouraging aspect of this reform.

I acknowledge these educational reforms because it makes school more about real-world usefulness and less about school works. Also, this helps students learn things that are actually useful in everyday life.

However, the transition to this modernized systems introduces significant challenges, particularly concerning resource equity and infrastructure. In many schools across the nation, these basic resources are still lacking, which creates a large disconnect between the policy’s and its implementation on the ground. Without addressing these foundational disparities, the new curriculum risk inflaming the existing educational gap between well-resourced school and those in undeserved communities.

Therefore, these constant adjustments affect everyone in the community. Rushing the implementation of a brand-new plan, no matter how good it sounds of paper, can lead to more widespread frustration and confusion rather than real educational progress. Furthermore, change is difficult, and it requires a stable, well-supported foundation. A new plan is not a guaranteed fix if the basic structure is weak.

For many years, education in the Philippines followed a 10-year basic education cycle: 6 years of elementary school and 4 years of high school. This system did not align with international standards, making it difficult for graduates to pursue higher education or earn a living abroad. To address this issue, the old curriculum was enhanced by adding two more years, resulting in the creation of the K–12 program. Many had mixed feelings about this change; some expressed dislike and disagreement, while others supported it.

Under the K–12 system, Grades 11 and 12 were designed as a preparatory stage for college courses. Senior high school students were grouped into different strands: STEM for students pursuing courses in science and engineering, HUMSS for those in humanities and social sciences, ABM for students interested in accountancy and business management, and GAS for those still undecided about their future careers. Other offerings include TVL, Arts and Design, and Sports. However, like the previous curriculum, this one also had flaws.

What was meant to be a form of preparation gradually became an inconvenience for some learners. One major issue was the additional financial burden placed on families, as attending school for two more years meant incurring extra expenses for transportation, school supplies, and daily living allowances. Another concern was the overloaded curriculum, where students had to take too many subjects at once, leaving little time to focus on their chosen strand. Many public schools also lacked proper facilities, classrooms, and equipment, especially for strands that required laboratories and hands-on training. In some areas, there were not enough qualified teachers to handle specialized subjects, resulting in students not fully gaining the skills promised by their strand. Moreover, despite the goal of making senior high school graduates job-ready, some employers still preferred college graduates, making the additional years feel less beneficial to certain students.

To address these issues, the K–12 curriculum introduced the work immersion subject in senior high school, aiming to bridge the gap between classroom lessons and real-life work by giving students hands-on experience related to their chosen strand. Work immersion helped develop practical skills, exposed learners to actual work environments, and made their subjects more meaningful by showing how lessons are applied outside school. However, further issues still arose, including the misalignment between the strands taken by senior high school students and the courses or programs they choose in college, making the separation of strands seem impractical.

This issue led to the development of a new curriculum. Instead of separating students into many academic strands, the revised senior high school curriculum focuses on fewer and broader tracks. Along with this change, the subjects taken by students were revised, reducing their number to lessen academic overload and allow learners to focus more on essential competencies. This approach gives students more flexibility in choosing college courses and better aligns senior high school education with higher education, ensuring that the additional years truly serve their purpose of preparing students for college and employment.

This year, the Philippines has slowly introduced the new strengthened curriculum. This revised curriculum is expected to be beneficial, as it addresses several major concerns of the previous system, such as curriculum overload and strand misalignment. By simplifying the structure and focusing on essential competencies, it has the potential to better prepare students for college and future careers. However, there are still problems that this curriculum does not fully solve, such as the lack of facilities, resources, and equal learning opportunities for all students. But despite this, I believe these changes are a step in the right direction, and there is hope that these revisions will lead to further improvements in the Philippine education system in the future.

References:

https://chedk12.wordpress.com/a-historical-perspective/

https://depedtagbilaran.org/about-the-k-to-12-program/

https://yptoolbox.unescapsdd.org/portfolio/work-immersion-philippines/

https://pia.gov.ph/news/deped-highlights-strengthened-senior-high-school-curriculum/

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about the revised Senior High School (SHS) curriculum that the Department of Education (DepEd) plans to pilot in School Year 2025–2026. The new setup combines the existing SHS tracks into just two pathways: Academic and Technical-Professional (TechPro). On paper, this change is meant to simplify the system, reduce curriculum overload, and better align students’ education with future college and career options. While I understand these goals, I can’t help but feel conflicted about what this shift might really mean for students like me.

Education reforms are often labeled as “progress,” but as a student, I think it’s important to pause and question how these changes affect our actual learning experiences. School isn’t just about finishing subjects or meeting requirements, it’s also where many of us start figuring out who we are, what we’re good at, and what kind of future we want. Because of this, curriculum changes shouldn’t just be efficient; they should also be meaningful and supportive of students’ personal growth.

Under the previous SHS curriculum, the Academic track was divided into specific strands like STEM, ABM, HUMSS, and GA. These strands weren’t perfect, but they gave structure and direction. Choosing a strand helped many students, including myself and people around me, better understand our strengths and interests. It made future plans like choosing a college course or career path feel a little less overwhelming. Having that sense of identity early on mattered more than we sometimes realize.

With everything now grouped under a single Academic track, I worry that things might become too general. Students with very different goals and learning styles will be placed in the same space, and that might make it harder for some of us to feel seen or guided. While flexibility is important, not everyone has the privilege of “figuring it out later.” Some students rely on clear structures in school to help them make informed decisions about their future.

I also recognize that educational tracking has its downsides. Being placed into a strand early can feel limiting, and research shows that tracking can sometimes create pressure or reinforce inequalities. Still, I believe that completely removing clear distinctions may not be the solution either. What students need is a balance, enough flexibility to explore, but enough structure to provide clarity and confidence.

So yeah... DepEd's Newly Revised SHS Curriculum... this feels like another excuse for DepEd just to implement something naman...

So basically this "new" curriculum focuses much on work immersion and cuts the program into just Tech-Voc and Academics na lang... Ba't dalawa lang?? Sure parang experimental ito kung sasabihin, and that claims that it is aimed to strengthen the curriculum.

However, a lot will be cut down from its predecessor—the current K-12 curriculum—for which the current strands (such as STEM, HUMMS, ABM) will just be Academics, while retaining Tech-Voc.

Well yeah, when K-12 was implemented almost a decade ago, people believed that its just going to halt students another 2 years from college, pero it is said effected yung K-12, as with the different strands, we, the students are able to choose our track of our choice, but now, iisa na lang, which is Academics na in general, wala nang strands for which held a purpose in the first place. Ba't ganon pa??

Kung ganon, parang generalized na lahat... no passion. no creativity. oversimplified.

At tsaka, yung core subjects, from 15, naging 5 subjects na lang, with the rest being electives na lang. Yung research maging elective na lang, which dapat retained as a core subject as its essential rin for college.

Yes sure, meron rin yung work immersion, which is the new curiculum's focus, and does prepare students for the environment of their work choice, pero it seems like they are over-prioritizing this too much rather than academics, which is still fundamental for preparation in college. And considering 5 subjects na lang, andami talaga na cut down, at yung time and effort masasayang na lang... talagang wala tayong mapapala kung puros lang immersion at kulang sa oras sa pag-aaral ng dapat aralin.

Pagod na pagod na kami... puros deadlines... kulang na sa oras... kulang pa sa classrooms, at kulang pa sa facilities... nakakabuwisit na... dapat ang focus natin muna is fixing yung current problem, yung focus na dapat mabigyan ng tamang provision sa ating kabataan, katulad ng flexibility (yung pagpipili ng electives kaysa removal), workload balance, at yung availability ng classrooms at facilities and not cause another with a chaotic planning for our future learners.

Pero... who knows...

If this curriculum does get implemented, I would just hope that it will be as effective or better than its former...

But it then again, its always us to decide our own future.

SOURCE:

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.deped.gov.ph%2Fstrengthened-shs-program%2F&h=AT150ejWwlE71veJ3Vc9v3R35FoRaq4re5iE2x1ObBE1SZyGmjtpv4u00EiHNHpUUrya63PUjhPdzqqi66R0u2PHLWOBE-gj32tJ7uaCqWRbBDkpVQMQPKtmcuY5mjLyEZyuW0KF6KHol8U&s=1

https://www.reddit.com/r/studentsph/s/3pEGd0VDEt

📷: PNA (Philippine News Agency)

The new Senior High School curriculum feels like it become a meaningful improvement where the students can really choose what they want, as it focuses on fewer subjects and more skill-based learnings that helped students improve and have a clear mind to decide. I find it very helpful that the system we have now gives the students more freedom to explore what they think really fits them best. Instead of feeling lost in many requirements, we can focus on what is really necessary.

Though there’s a lot of people who describes Senior High School as a preparation for college, I believe that it serves a different purpose in reality. Whenever I hear the word “senior high school” and “new curriculum of senior high”, I always thought of the word improvement. From what I’ve experienced, this becomes the time where students slowly discover their strengths and skills, rather than a stage filled with heavy academic work. I think that the new curriculum encourages us to reflect on what do we really want for our future. It helps us understand our interests, manage our responsibilities, and learn how to make decisions for ourselves, in a way where it builds our characters more than it prepares us for college lessons.

I appreciate how the new curriculum help students to feel more motivated and less stressed from the workloads and requirements. This also helped students see the connection between what they study and what kind of work or future they imagine for themselves. This become personal and purposeful for students, as it helps them set a clear personal goal and focus on what is really needed to achieve their goal.

I have seen how this works in real situations with the people around me. A friend of mine used to feel unsure about her plans, but with this, she gained confidence and clear vision of what she really wanted and what skills should she have and improved. Another friend of mine learned to speak more confidently as our classes required group activities and short presentations. Experiences like these made me realize how Senior High School teaches us lessons that are not always written in books. It also shapes our confidence, skill, behavior, and attitude.

As someone who’s graduating this year, I’m honestly relieved that I won’t have to experience the new SHS curriculum they’re planning to implement next school year. I’ve gone through the strand system from Grade 11 to 12, and even if it had its own flaws, at least it was organized and clear. Hearing about the upcoming changes just feels messy and unnecessary, and I honestly disagree with the direction they’re taking.

The new curriculum removes strands and reshuffles subjects in a way that feels rushed and confusing. If they’re trying to improve the system, it doesn’t seem like they actually asked students or teachers what we really need. Instead of fixing the problems we already have, like lack of facilities, overloaded workloads, and inconsistent teaching, they’re changing everything again as if students are part of some trial-and-error experiment.

I feel bad for the younger batches who will have to deal with it. From what I’ve seen, even teachers aren’t fully prepared, which means students will end up struggling even more. The curriculum feels disconnected from real life, and instead of making things easier or more practical, it looks like it will just add more pressure and confusion.

Honestly, I’m thankful I’m graduating before all these changes start. The new SHS curriculum doesn’t look like an improvement at all. It feels like another chaotic shift that will only make students’ lives harder.

📷 Liezelle Soriano | The Post

Education has always been one of our strongest foundations that prepares us for the world beyond the classroom. It was late 2024 and early 2025 announced that there is plan to revise Senior High School curriculum and it suggests a change. A Change is never easy, especially when it comes with consequences and effects. This change is not easy as it has a significant impact, particularly in students who will adapt to this new curriculum. When the Senior High School curriculum was still being planned, many people shared their mixed opinions, and we also became curious about what the change would bring. We might wonder and ask ourselves, Is it better? Will it be difficult? Will it actually help students prepare for their future? These are just some of the questions that crossed in our minds. Perhaps, these questions also crossed in my mind, I’m sure like any other students who hopes for a more effective and improved education system, and now that changes are officially here.

In the new curriculum, students now have only two main options, unlike the previous curriculum that offered several strands. These are divided into academic and technical professional tracks. For me, turning it into two choices will make things easier for students and help them avoid the confusion of choosing among too many strands. It is more flexible, allowing students to select the path that suits them. From having several core subjects, the curriculum now has only five. I think it is much better so the students are be able to concentrate on such areas, making the students not only focus on their core subjects but also to their chosen electives. Additionally, the reduction of core subjects focus deeply on mastery and balance core learning with electives aligned to their interests.

Electives in the new curriculum can be helpful for students who are sure with their future path and for those who are still thinking on what path should they take. In choosing their electives, it could be beneficial as they get to choose electives that align with their interest and future career. This can be also their advantage when they get to college if their electives are aligned with the program they will take as they already have a foundation knowledge that could help them understand better as well as the lessons will be easier for them to absorb when they are in college. On the other hand, this can also be helpful for those who are still undecided about their future career because it gives them more freedom and flexibility where they can choose electives from various clusters, allowing them to explore different areas and discover what they are truly interested in. As someone who experience being undecided, I am really glad that students can now choose different electives or basically customize their learning. The “doorway option” is a good choice for them as it allows them to take subjects across different tracks giving them the chance to test out different areas.  For instance, students who are in the field STEM can take subjects related to ABM. I have some schoolmates who wants to take program that isn’t matched with their strands and it’s kind of hard for them since they didn’t have subjects that aligned with it. For me, this is really a nice idea because some students, especially in the old curriculum might feel being stuck or confined to their track.