By Estanislao Albano, Jr.
One of the subject I brought up during my interview with three members of the staff of the Bureau of Learning Delivery (BLD) – Supervising Education Program Specialist Jocelyn Tuguinayo and Senior Education Program Specialists Angel Jabines and Nemia Cedo – at the DepEd central office morning of January 14 is the “missing” Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) data. The Phil-IRI is a reading assessment tool developed to identify the pupils with reading difficulties and help the teacher institute appropriate intervention for them and also for the school head to plan reading programs and activities for the school.
Ever since I learned about the existence of the Phil-IRI while researching on the high school non-reader phenomenon last year, I wanted to get a hold of the data to see the trend in the reading proficiency level of Filipino children and likewise get indications on how the innovations in the basic education system are impacting the reading performance of pupils. I began the pursuit by writing the Bureau of Learning Division (BLD), which I learned through a call to the DepEd central office is in charge of the Phil-IRI program, on April 19, 2018 requesting “results of the PHIL-IRI pre and post tests per division for SYs 2011-2012 and 2016-2017 and for the consolidated national PHIL-IRI pre and post tests results from SY 2011-2012 to SY 2016-2017.”
Getting no response from the BLD despite several calls and again based from misleading information as to who the proper office to write from DepEd, I wrote another request this time to the Bureau of Education Assessment (BEA) on October 4, 2018. The office would forward the letter to the BLD some days later and after more follow-ups, I finally get an email from BLD Director IV Leila Araceli Areola on November 6, 2018 or seven months after my initial letter saying they do not have data since “the consolidation, interpretation and analysis are done at the school level” and that the Phil-IRI is classroom-based assessment tool. She recommended that I approach the schools divisions for the consolidated data of their respective schools.
Tuguinayo said she was the one who drafted the reply of Areola. I then told her that their office had not responded to my reaction dated November 7, 2018 which asked how come they did not have the data when the Phil-IRI manual required the consolidation of the results of the reading tests at the school, district, division and regional levels with the regional reading profile submitted to the BLD. I showed them a print out of page 7 of the manual which states the reporting procedure for the results of the Phil-IRI. At first, they said that the manual I am referring to is the old manual and that it has already been revised so I pointed out that my letter was asking for data prior to the revision of the Phil-IRI in 2018. Tuguinayo then simply said that she had not yet seen my letter. I do not know how their office could not have received the letter since it is in the thread of their email but felt no necessity to prove that the letter got to them just then.
Tuguinayo said that the BLD does not prepare a national reading profiles unless they ask the regions to submit their Phil-IRI data which they are not doing on the rationale that the purpose of the Phil-IRI is for classroom intervention and therefore the matter remains in the school level. She added that when approached by NGOs who need the Phil-IRI information, they refer the latter to the regional offices.
Tuguinayo informed that under the old Phil-IRI, they used to consolidate the results but in 2009, some officials of the DepEd questioned the need to maintain a national database since the concept of the Phil-IRI is to serve as an reading assessment tool on the classroom level. When I asked if they DepEd national office has any idea on the population of Grade 7 non-readers all over the country, Tuguinayo said that the BEA has statistics for the least learned skills but not the number of non-readers. She continued that the national office could get the data from the regions but that they are not mandated since the findings of the Phil-IRI are already addressed at the classroom level.
Much to my regret, it was only after the interview that I came across issuances which contradict the statement of Tuguinayo that the DepEd discontinued maintaining the Phil-IRI database in 2009. DepEd Memorandum No. 266, series of 2010, June 10, 2010 and titled “Philippine Informal Reading Inventory Reporting and Database System” states that “the system facilitates speedy and accurate processing and transmission of data from the schools through the divisions to the national level.” DepEd Order No. 70, series of 2011, titled “Guidelines on the utilization of funds for the Every Child a Reader Program” includes among its purposes the “management and maintenance of a database.” And c.3 of DepEd Order No. 50, series of 2012, titled “Guidelines on the utilization of funds for the Every Child a Reader Program” mandates the “enhancement of existing data-base reporting of the Phil-IRI.”
Was Tuguinayo saying that these issuances including the reporting system set in the old Phil-IRI manual have all been set aside? **(To be continued)
