By Estanislao Albano, Jr.
On page 104 of its EDCOM II Year Two Report, the Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II) cited that EDCOM I, its predecessor which was convened in 1991, had recommended “creating and administering the National Achievement Test (NAT) to evaluate student progress: functional literacy by the end of Grade 4, scholastic achievement by the end of Grade 6, and readiness for vocational and tertiary education by the senior year of high school.”
Based on the recommendation, at that time, learners were expected to achieve functional literacy by Grade 4. Relative to this, there were no indications in EDCOM I’s report “Making Education Work: An Agenda for Reform” that the teaching and learning of reading was a cause for concern during that period. These statements on pages xiv and 9, respectively, bear this observation out: “This Report is far from clinical and objective. But we do not apologize for its tone. How can we be detached when we are faced with evidence that our young people revert to illiteracy because their instruction is indifferent?”; “Most of those who drop out of the early grades lapse into illiteracy.”
Based on the quotes, it is clear that the problem of the EDCOM I with regards to literacy was reversion to illiteracy and not failure to teach and to learn literacy like now.
Here are additional proofs that at that time, EDCOM I target grade for the attainment of functional literacy was realistic:
In 1991 when Republic Act No. 7165 (An Act Creating the Literacy Coordinating Council, Defining its Powers and Functions, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes) was enacted, there was still no illiteracy problem in our schools. The declared intent of the law is to totally eradicate illiteracy but it only covered people who could not attend school as the learning programs it prescribed to attain the goal are carried out outside of schools.
The law said nothing about the participation of schools in the effort to totally eradicate illiteracy which implies that at the time, the education arm of the government was still performing its task of teaching reading satisfactorily.
In 2002, then Education Secretary Raul Roco attested that there were no non-readers in the elementary grades, only some pupils who lacked reading comprehension. Referring to the 2002 Basic Education Curriculum, Roco wrote in DepEd Order No. 25, s. 2002, dated June 17, 2002
(“Implementation of the 2002 Basic Education Curriculum”): “It seeks to cure the inability of students who cannot read with comprehension at grade 3 and worse, at grade 6.” This is worlds apart from the current situation wherein there are non-readers even in Grades 7-10 as admitted by DepEd Undersecretary Gina Gonong (“How DepEd plans to implement program on reading, math,” ABS-CBN News, 8/29/24).
Apparently, although it reported the functional literacy deadline of EDCOM I, EDCOM II failed to realize that in order for learners to already be functionally literate by Grade 4, they should already be basically literate by Grade 1. Either that or it does not mind that its planned literacy timetable is vastly inferior to that of EDCOM I. On page 44 of the EDCOM II Year Two Report, the EDCOM II announced its intention to set Grade 3 as target for the achievement of foundational literacy. Ironically and ridiculously, the target is two years behind the pre-DepEd era Grade 1 deadline for all learners to become readers.
It follows that EDCOM II does not know that the reason EDCOM I could reasonably set Grade 4 as the point to test functional literacy was at the time, the traditional “No Read, No Move Policy” was still in place. The policy prohibited the passing of Grade 1 learners who could not read ensuring that all Grade 2 pupils were basically literate thereby affording enough time for them to transition to functional literacy by Grade 4. In an insane move it still has to explain, the DepEd replaced the “No Read, No Move Policy” with DepEd Order No. 45, s. 2002, which moved the deadline for learning to read to Grade 3 in 2002.
**
