Source catalogue — depedclub.com

What is available at The DepEd Teachers Club that this repository needs, why each item matters, and what it would change.

Read the confidence column before acting on anything here. Nothing on this page has been read from the primary document. See Access constraint.

Access constraint

The starting point was the site's sitemap index:

https://depedclub.com/sitemap_index.xml

It cannot be fetched from this environment. The network egress proxy refuses the CONNECT before TLS is negotiated:

$ curl -sS https://depedclub.com/sitemap_index.xml
curl: (56) CONNECT tunnel failed, response 403

WebFetch returns EGRESS_BLOCKED for the same host. This is the same allowlist that blocks deped.gov.ph — documented in matatag-brief.md §6. No browser, proxy or certificate change fixes it; the request never leaves the network.

So this catalogue was built from web search results, not from the site. Search runs server-side and is unaffected by the egress block. That means:

• The URLs below came back from search and are recorded verbatim. Each was not individually confirmed to resolve.
• The descriptions come from search-engine summaries of page text — not from the PDFs those pages link to. On depedclub the actual file usually sits one page deeper, behind a "Download" child page.
• No file listed here has been read.

That distinction matters here more than usual. This repository has already been burned once by treating search summaries as curriculum fact — it produced a Grade 4 quarter map that was substantially wrong and a Grade 1–10 spine wrong in seven of ten rows (ARTIFACT-SPEC.md §6). Everything below is therefore a shopping list, not a source.

How to actually get these

The Mathematics CG in source/ got here because it was uploaded directly into the session. That path still works and is the only one that does. To verify anything in the Needed column below, download the file on an unrestricted machine and attach it.

Findings that affect what is already built

Three things surfaced while cataloguing. Two were breaking and have since been adopted at the author's instruction; one closes an open question. None is confirmed against its primary document — every one still rests on secondary reporting, and each is flagged where it is used.

1. The four-quarter school year no longer exists — now adopted ✅⚠️

The artifacts were built around four quarters. They have since been migrated to the three-term calendar at the author's instruction: the syllabus now carries a term structure, a 33-week three-term scope and sequence, and term-based assessment.

Multiple independent outlets report that DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026 replaces the four-quarter calendar with a three-term calendar, starting SY 2026–2027 — which, as of this writing, is the current school year.

Corroborated across the Presidential Communications Office, PNA, GMA News, and a division memorandum enforcing its instructional-block provisions.

What the migration touched: the syllabus structure, and every label naming a quarter. What it did not touch: the competencies, the lesson, the game, the slides, or the activities. The Grade 4 lesson stays at Term 1 Week 7 — the same week it already occupied.

What remains unresolved: which CG quarter falls in which term is not something the CG states, because the CG predates the calendar. The distribution in the syllabus §5 is this repository's proposal, resting on the CG's listing order plus one corroborating data point (published Grade 4 Term 1 material covers CG Quarter 1 plus multiplication and division). The Budget of Work files would settle it.

2. The grading weights were wrong — now adopted ✅⚠️

The syllabus stated WW 40% / PT 40% / QA 20%, citing DO No. 8, s. 2015. It now uses DO No. 015, s. 2026, which reporting says supersedes it — the matched pair to the three-term calendar, and the only version in which a "Term Examination" makes sense:

The third component is also reported as renamed and subdivided — Examinations comprising Summative Test 1 (30%), Summative Test 2 (30%) and the Term Examination (40%). The weights above are reported for Key Stages 2–3 core learning areas, which includes Grade 4 Mathematics.

This changed one table in the syllabus (§6) and one row in its header block. The syllabus carries a visible warning at the point of use: the weights are reported, not read, and must be confirmed against the order before anyone computes a real grade with them.

3. Key Stage 1 language — question closed ✅

The open decision was whether Grades 1–3 sets should be in English or the mother tongue. Reporting is consistent: MATATAG removed Mother Tongue as a subject in Grades 1–3, but retained the mother tongue as the medium of instruction through Grade 3 for all learning areas except the Filipino and English subjects.

So Grades 1–3 Mathematics artifacts belong wholly in the mother tongue, which is what ARTIFACT-SPEC.md §5 already specifies. The spec stands; the question was open only because it was unsourced. Note DepEd recognises 19 MTB-MLE languages, so "Key Stage 1" is not one artifact set but potentially nineteen — the practical default being Filipino, with the folder structure allowing regional parallel sets.

And one corroboration ✅

Search summaries of the Grade 4 Term 1 lesson exemplars place, at Week 7: "read, write and compare whole numbers up to 1 000 000, determine place value in 6-digit numbers and identify the value and digit position."

That is our lesson, at the week we independently reasoned it to. The syllabus §9 note placing this session at "roughly Week 7" was derived from the CG's own listing order, with no access to any weekly breakdown. It matches.

Round 2 — 17 August 2026

A second search pass, run specifically against the gaps listed in README.md's "Still unverified" table. Egress was re-tested first and is unchanged — curl returns exit 56 on every host tried, including deped.gov.ph, depedclub.com, the division mirrors, pco.gov.ph and drive.google.com, and WebFetch returns EGRESS_BLOCKED. The block is now blanket rather than an allowlist. Search still runs server-side, so this round has the same standing as the first: summaries, not documents.

It found four things that make shipped artifacts wrong, and one that answers an open question.

4. Grade 1 does not get a numerical grade this year — BREAKING ❌

DO No. 015, s. 2026 introduces a descriptive, non-numeric grading system for Key Stage 1, phased in one grade at a time. The phase-in lands on Grade 1 in SY 2026–2027 — the current year, and the grade this repository has built.

The Grades 1–3 scale is reported as five letters, each with a Filipino term:

Kindergarten is reported separately as CO / DV / BG (Consistent, Developing, Beginning).

Reporting is through a Learner's Progress Report carrying narrative feedback, not a numeric report card, and no academic awards are conferred at Key Stage 1. Written Works, Performance Tasks and Examinations still exist as evidence categories, but they are not weighted into a number for Grade 1; teachers are given discretion over how much evidence is enough, and formal written examinations are to be "limited and developmentally appropriate". The named evidence sources are observations, anecdotal records, learner outputs and rubric-based assessment.

What this breaks. grades/g01-math/syllabus.md §6 — and its English copy — apply WW 20% / PT 50% / EX 30%, a transmutation table and a passing mark of 75 to Grade 1. All of that belongs to Key Stages 2–4. The §6 warning currently says the weights are unverified; the correct statement is that they do not apply to this grade at all.

Sources: BicolDotPH · DepEd Tambayan · Manila Times · tchersden

5. The Grade 4 weights are corroborated ✅

Searched independently of finding #2 and returned the same figures, now attributed explicitly to the core learning areas at Key Stage 2 — English, Filipino, Mathematics, Science, Araling Panlipunan — with EPP/TLE and MAPEH weighted differently:

Written Works 20% · Performance Tasks 50% · Examinations 30%, the Examinations component splitting Summative Test 1 30% / Summative Test 2 30% / Term Examination 40%.

That is exactly what grades/g04-math/syllabus.md §6 says. Still secondary reporting, but now two independent passes agreeing on both the weights and the subdivision.

6. Transmutation is mid-phase-out — our wording is wrong for both grades ⚠️

Both syllabi say transmutation "follows the DepEd transmutation table; 75 is the passing grade". That elides a transition:

So the sentence is wrong in two directions at once — it names the old table for a year that uses an adjusted one, and it implies permanence for something being withdrawn next year. For Grade 1 the sentence should not be there at all (finding #4).

7. The terms are not equal, and there are ~34 weeks, not 33 ⚠️

Both syllabi state "thirty-three instructional weeks, eleven per term" in §5 and build a scope-and-sequence on it. DO No. 009, s. 2026 is reported as:

170 instructional days ≈ 34 weeks, split roughly 11 / 11 / 12 — Term 3 is more than a week longer than the others. 201 class days in total, 8 June 2026 – 8 April 2027, which matches finding #1.

Our even split is a reasonable approximation but it is stated as fact and it is not one. Term 3 in particular has more room than the syllabus gives it.

8. The prescribed lesson plan format is ILAW — question closed ✅❌

This was logged in Tier 2 as "a lesson-log format this repo has not encountered". It is not a niche variant. ILAW is the single unified lesson plan template prescribed under DO No. 009, s. 2026 — the same order this repository already adopted for the three-term calendar.

Two reported provisions matter. It replaces both the DLL and the DLP, which supersedes the DO No. 42, s. 2016 arrangement. And schools, divisions and regions are prohibited from requiring any additional lesson plan template beyond ILAW.

What this affects. Our lesson plans use the MATATAG Lesson Exemplar headings (I–IV). The content maps onto ILAW closely enough that this is a restructure, not a rewrite:

Worth keeping distinct: a Lesson Exemplar is DepEd's own teaching material, while ILAW is the plan the teacher writes. Our documents are named as exemplars, so the format is defensible as a teaching resource — but if the intent is a plan a teacher can file, it is the wrong container.

Sources: lessonplanph · depedlibre · Skoolari

9. Summative test and TOS rules ✅

New, and directly relevant to the assessment gap:

• A single Summative Test may not exceed half the item count of the Term Examination.
• Term Examination item counts are guided by the teacher's own Table of Specifications.
• Grades 4–12 get approximate ranges per learning area per term; Grades 1–3 are left to teacher discretion, keeping assessment manageable.

So the TOS is a teacher-authored document, not a DepEd-issued one — which means it is something this repository can legitimately generate rather than something it must obtain.

Tier 1 — would change what we ship

Added in round 2

Also worth having for finding #1: DO No. 009, s. 2026 itself, mirrored at depedtambayanph and DepEd San Pablo — a division site, so closer to primary.

Tier 2 — would verify what we shipped

Grade 1 — fully enumerated

A site index covering all 2,120 pages and 18,733 unique download links was harvested on 2026-08-17 and supplied directly. Every Grade 1 file, across all five learning areas, is enumerated with direct download links in grade-1-file-manifest.md — 165 pages, 1,678 files, of which 195 are catalogued there as relevant.

The same index can be mined the same way for any other grade on request.

Tier 3 — needed for the remaining nine grades

We do not need most of Tier 3. The Mathematics CG already committed in source/ covers Grades 1–10 in one document — every grade's competencies for all three domains. Tier 3 matters only if the project expands beyond Mathematics, which ARTIFACT-SPEC.md §1 explicitly scoped out.

Not needed

Listed so the decision is visible rather than re-litigated: summative tests, periodical tests with TOS, answer keys, e-class record templates, and the LAS/worksheet libraries for grades other than 4. The intent is that this repository writes its own assessment instruments rather than importing DepEd's, which would add licensing ambiguity for no gain. Finding #9 supports that: the Table of Specifications is a teacher-authored document, so generating one is the correct move, not a workaround.

✅ The premise is now true. When this note was first written the instruments did not exist — roughly 80% of the assessment weight described in §6 of each syllabus had nothing behind it. They have since been written: g04-math/assessment.md carries a Table of Specifications, Summative Test 1, Summative Test 2, a 40-item Term Examination, full answer keys and rubrics for all four performance tasks; g01-math/assessment.md carries the descriptive-grading toolkit instead, because Grade 1 has no numerical mark this year (finding #4). Every computed answer was checked arithmetically before shipping. What is still unverified is the order they serve, not the instruments.

What to prioritise

Round 2 reorders this. If only one file can be obtained it is now DO No. 015, s. 2026, because finding #4 says a shipped document is wrong about the current school year and only the order settles what replaces it. DO No. 009, s. 2026 moves to second, having turned out to carry two things at once — the calendar (findings #1, #7) and the ILAW lesson plan template (finding #8).

Third is the Grade 4 Three-Term Budget of Work, previously first: it still closes the week-sequencing gap open since the first commit, and finding #7 widened that gap by showing the terms are unequal. The Grade 1 BOW follows for the same reason.

Take all four as the DepEd Order PDFs rather than any site's summary of them. Every finding on this page still rests on secondary reporting.

Both findings have now been adopted rather than merely recorded — a syllabus has to commit to one calendar, and a half-migrated repository would be worse than either state. Every adopted but unread claim is flagged at its point of use and listed in the "Still unverified" tables in README.md and matatag-brief.md.