Rights-Based Education and Instructional Innovation in Public Junior High Schools in the Silang District of Cavite Province: Basis for a Sustainable Equity-Driven Framework

Rights-based education (RBE) provides a framework for ensuring that educational practices promote learners’ dignity, participation, inclusion, accountability, and holistic development. This study assessed RBE and instructional innovation in selected public junior high schools in the Silang District of Cavite Province and used the findings as the basis for a Sustainable Equity-Driven Framework. A descriptive quantitative research design was employed involving 252 respondents, comprising 7 school heads, 33 department heads, and 212 teachers. Data were gathered using a researcher-developed questionnaire and analyzed through weighted mean, one-way analysis of variance, post hoc comparisons, and Pearson product-moment correlation. Findings revealed that RBE was highly evident across all dimensions, with holistic development obtaining the highest mean (M = 4.57), followed by accountability (M = 4.41), equity and inclusion (M = 4.33), child-centeredness (M = 4.30), and participation (M = 4.30). Significant differences among respondent groups were found in child-centeredness, equity and inclusion, participation, and accountability, but not in holistic development. Instructional innovation was likewise highly evident (M = 4.46). Relationships between RBE and instructional innovation varied across dimensions, indicating that rights-based practices interact selectively with specific forms of instructional innovation. Challenges related to RBE (M = 2.93) and instructional innovation (M = 3.17) were moderately encountered. The proposed Sustainable Equity-Driven Framework was highly acceptable (M = 4.30). The findings underscore the importance of integrating learner rights, inclusive pedagogy, instructional innovation, professional development, and shared accountability in advancing equitable and sustainable public secondary education.

rights-based education, instructional innovation, educational equity, inclusive education, learner participation, sustainable educational framework

1. Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools (3rd ed.). Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. CAST. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Department of Education. (2022). DepEd Order No. 031, s. 2022: Child Rights Policy: Adopting the Rights-Based Education Framework in Philippine Basic Education. Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Corwin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953–1960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hattie, J. A. C., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. npj Science of Learning, 1, 16013. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. OECD. (2020). TALIS 2018 results (Volume II): Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. OECD. (2023). Digital equity and inclusion in education: An overview of practice and policy in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. OECD. (2023). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an effective digital education ecosystem. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. OECD. (2026). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2026: Exploring effective uses of generative AI in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/062a7394-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Piacentini, M., & Foster, N. (Eds.). (2023). Innovating assessments to measure and support complex skills. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e5f3e341-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive education isn’t dead, it just smells funny. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. UNESCO. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education—All means all. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. UNESCO. (2023). Recommendation on education for peace and human rights, international understanding, cooperation, fundamental freedoms, global citizenship and sustainable development. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. UNESCO. (2025). The right to education: Past, present and future directions. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. UNICEF. (2007). A human rights-based approach to education for all: A framework for the realization of children’s right to education and rights within education. UNICEF/UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. UNICEF. (2022). Global annual results report 2022: Goal area 2—Every child, including adolescents, learns and acquires skills for the future. UNICEF. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. UNICEF. (2023). Education facts: Philippines. UNICEF Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge—A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. World Bank. (2018). World development report 2018: Learning to realize education’s promise. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. World Bank. (2020). Realizing the future of learning: From learning poverty to learning for everyone, everywhere. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study