A new study by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) suggests the Department of Education’s (DepEd) long-standing 75 percent proficiency benchmark for students in national assessments may not accurately reflect actual learning.
The paper says this fixed standard for tests like the National Achievement Test (NAT) is not based on curriculum-aligned standard-setting processes, potentially leading to a misrepresentation of learner performance.
The PIDS study, “Examining the DepEd’s National Assessments: A Review of Framework, Design, Development, Psychometric Properties, and Utilization,” found that using standard setting cut-offs, rather than the Bureau of Education Assessment’s (BEA) 75 percent cutoff, would show more students reaching the proficient level.
This indicates the current bar may be set too high, resulting in many students who demonstrate expected skills being incorrectly categorized as “nearly proficient” or “low proficient.” The authors stress the need for a more evidence-based approach to defining proficiency.
The research highlights several other areas for improvement in the national assessment system. Teachers, school heads and division testing coordinators interviewed for the study pointed to a lack of alignment between national assessments and classroom instruction.
They noted system-level tests often focus on broad 21st-century skills, such as problem-solving and critical thinking, which are difficult to assess properly without clear training, well-developed test items and a shared understanding of their practical application.
Teachers also recommended that national assessments provide more detailed, competency-specific data to help them improve instruction.
The study underscores the need for stronger test development and item validation processes. Analysis showed some test items were too easy, too difficult or lacked sufficient discrimination, pointing to the importance of rigorous quality control in item writing, review, and selection. The authors said system and classroom assessments should ideally be aligned.
Stakeholders also raised concerns about delays in releasing test results and the absence of clear, skill-based proficiency descriptions. Teachers said timely and skill-focused reports would help them support student progression effectively, while more precise descriptions would prevent parents and learners from misinterpreting scores as signs of poor performance.
A more transparent reporting system is recommended to help schools track progress, identify gaps and collaborate on instructional improvements.
The study’s conclusions call for strengthening every stage of the assessment cycle, from framework development to reporting and utilization, as DepEd implements the MATATAG Curriculum and reviews its national assessment policy.
The authors suggested strengthening the BEA’s role, possibly as an attached agency with safeguards for objectivity or an independent assessment body, to ensure continuity, transparency and fairness in reporting learning outcomes, ultimately aiming to elevate the quality of education in the Philippines.
