DepEd urged to review 75% proficiency standard

December 17, 2025 | 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines — The Department of Education (DepEd)’s long-standing practice of classifying students as “proficient” only if they score at least 75 percent in national assessments may not accurately reflect what learners actually know and can do, according to a new study by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS).

Titled “Examining the DepEd’s National Assessments: A Review of Framework, Design, Development, Psychometric Properties, and Utilization,” the paper evaluated how national tests are developed and used, and pointed to the need to strengthen test quality and align assessments more closely with curriculum expectations.

PIDS noted that DepEd’s fixed 75-percent benchmark for the National Achievement Test is not grounded in standard-setting processes that determine cutoffs based on curriculum requirements.

The study found that more students reach the proficient level when standard-setting cutoffs are applied rather than the Bureau of Education Assessment’s benchmark, suggesting that the current threshold may be set too high and may not accurately represent actual learner performance.

As a result, many students who demonstrate expected skills are still classified as “nearly proficient” or “low proficient.”

Interviews with teachers, school heads and division testing coordinators also highlighted the need for better alignment between national assessments and classroom instruction.

While system-level tests aim to measure broad 21st-century skills such as problem-solving and critical thinking, the study said these competencies are difficult to assess effectively without clear training, well-developed test items, and a shared understanding of how such skills manifest in practice.

Teachers interviewed for the study said they find assessment data linked to specific learning competencies more useful in improving instruction and recommended that national assessments provide more detailed information on student performance.

The analysis further underscored gaps in test development and item validation. Some test items were found to be too easy, too difficult, or insufficiently discriminating, pointing to the need for more rigorous quality control in item writing, review and selection.

Stakeholders also raised concerns over delays in the release of test results and the absence of clear, skill-based proficiency descriptions.

According to the study, timely and focused reporting would better support student progression and prevent parents and learners from misinterpreting scores as indicators of poor performance.

PIDS said a more transparent and user-friendly reporting system would help schools track progress, identify learning gaps, and collaborate more effectively on instructional improvements.

Latest