By Estanislao Albano, Jr.
In yet another breathtakingly misguided and obviously detrimental move, instead of finally enforcing the mothballed DepEd Order No. 45, s. 2002, its policy prohibiting the passing of reading laggards to Grade 4, to shore up the sagging literacy in public schools, the Department of Education (DepEd) scrapped the policy last June. DepEd Order No. 45, s. 2002, was among the policies repealed through DepEd Order No. 018, s. 2025, the implementing guidelines of the Academic Recovery and Accessible Learning (ARAL) Program (RA No. 12028), an intervention program in reading, Math and Science laggards in Grades 1-10.
DepEd Memorandum No. 064, s. 2025, the guidelines for the reading component of the ARAL Program, provides that learners “who demonstrate significant gaps in foundational literacy skills such as phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, decoding and basic fluency” can enroll in Grades 4-10. The word “non-readers” and other related terms do not appear in DepEd Order No. 018, s. 2025, and DepEd Memorandum No. 064, s. 2025, but the DepEd itself admitted to Congress last year the well-known fact that there are non-readers in Grade 7-10.
In effect, DepEd Order No. 018, s. 2025, legitimized the actual DepEd practice of promoting reading laggards up to Grade 12, ironically dating back to 2002 when DepEd Order No. 45, s. 2002, was issued. The repeal marks the second time in 23 years that the DepEd degraded its basic literacy acquisition timetable. DepEd Order No. 45, s. 2002, was actually the replacement for the traditional No Read, No Move Policy which for generations ensured that all learners attained basic literacy in Grade 1 as it disallowed reading laggards in Grade 2.
DepEd itself confirms the effectivity of the No Read, No Move Policy. Based on DepEd Order No. 25, s. 2002, the literacy problem at that time was limited to some elementary pupils who could not understand what they read. The Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II) also bared in its EDCOM II Year Two Report that EDCOM I, its predecessor which convened in 1991, had proposed the testing of functional literacy in Grade 4. This means that the No Read, No Move Policy worked satisfactorily.
It is therefore very hard to understand and to accept the decision of Secretary Juan Edgardo Angara to repeal DepEd Order No. 45, s. 2002, when in the first place, the policy it watered down was working well and furthermore, not even the DepEd can deny that the following among other literacy disasters absorbed by the country would not have taken place had the agency been enforcing DepEd Order No. 45, s. 2002:
First, the 90.9 percent learning poverty rate. The World Bank (WB) defines learning poverty as “being unable to read and understand a simple text by age 10.” Most of the country’s 10-year olds are in Grade 5 with the minority in Grade 4 thus there would be no reading laggards among them if DepEd is enforcing DepEd Order No. 45, s. 2002.
Second, the 76 percent functional illiteracy incidence among the country’s takers in the 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa). The rate would be very much lower as Filipino Pisa examinees are high school students and would already be reading at a minimum of three years before the test.
Apparently, Angara and the DepEd do not realize that in repealing DepEd Order No. 45, s. 2002, they have owned that the agency is the brains and moving force behind the mass promotion practice. Despite knowing that academic learning cannot take place unless the child first acquires basic literacy (DepEd Memorandum No. 143, s. 2012) and being aware of the havoc wrought by its refusal to enforce DepEd Order No. 45, s. 2002, the agency repealed the policy thereby officially welcoming reading laggards to Grades 4-12. If DepEd can officially authorize the promotion of learners who do not possess the essential learning skill, then it follows it has no qualms against passing laggards in the other competencies as well. In this case, DepEd Order No. 018, s. 2025, now stands as the DepEd’s mass promotion policy.**
