By Estanislao Albano, Jr.
In an effort to get hold of official data that would show if the quality of basic education in the country is progressing, retrogressing or stagnating over the years, I emailed Director Nelia Benito of the Bureau of Education Assessment (BEA) of the Department of Education (DepEd) on April 26 requesting for the summary of the results of the National Achievement Test (NAT) from the start it was given. It took at least 20 phone calls and more than three months before finally on August 15, I received an email from Benito with an attachment.
However, I was greatly disappointed when I opened the attachment because it only contained the results of the last five NATS so that same day I wrote back reiterating my request for the entire data and that if there is any reason that it could not be provided, I want to know so that I could reflect the same in my report. That was short of saying that if they do not release the rest of the data, I will indicate in my article that they refused to give the complete data. No answer until now.
Upon examining the data which gave the mean percentage scores (MPS) per region, something immediately struck me: there was a significant drop in the Grade 6 NAT in SYs 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. I right away dismissed the usual rise and fall of exam results from one occasion to the other because in some regions, the average score in SYs 2012-2013 to 2014-2015 was nearly halved in the last two years.
Sometime later, I finally got the explanation to the puzzle when I learned from a teacher that the last two NATS were administered not at the end of the school year but at the start of the following school year when the Grade 6 pupils were already in Grade 7. On August 29, I emailed a questionnaire to Benito which included the following: 1. What is the explanation for the very significant drop in the ratings in NAT 6 after the rescheduling?; What is your comment on the allegation that the drop is a clear and solid evidence of the rampant fraud that allegedly attend the administration of the NAT?; How come the NCR is in the cellar in the NAT and how come it reflected the least reduction in the scores in Grade 6 NAT after the rescheduling?
Receiving no answer until September 6, I called BEA again this time asking to talk to Benito or anybody who could speak in behalf of the office. The person who took the call said Benito was out and so was the department head who could answer my questions in her absence. He then asked me to just email my questions so that he could give it to the concerned when they get back to I told him that I had already done that on August 29. He asked which email address I sent it to and when I gave it to him, he asked me to send it to an alternative address which I immediately did. Upon learning they received the letter, I told the employee I will be releasing my story afternoon of following day with or without their side. He said he will inform his superiors immediately upon their return.
There was no word from BEA on September 7 and so the following day, I submitted my story to the Manila Times which published it on September 9. In gist, the article revealed the average 30.04 points drop in the MPS of all regions in the Grade 6 NAT in the last two years when the takers were already in the next grade level and that this development is an irrefutable evidence of the massive cheating tainting the examinations. Included are the statements of the source that she had met Grade 7 students with near perfect NAT scores with Grade 4 level knowledge and how it would be very easy for the DepEd to determine the authenticity of the scores but never took the step for fear of losing face as they style the NAT scores as the only measure of the quality of basic education in the country.
On September 11, I wrote Benito copy furnished Secretary Leonor Briones and Undersecretary Lorna Dig-Dino soliciting her reaction to the news report. No response as of this writing and it is highly unlikely that there will be any. Neither has the Manila Times received any reaction from the DepEd otherwise they would have already published it.
I appears to me that the game plan of the DepEd is to say the least about the last two NATs. That’s not only based on their refusal to answer my questions but also on their total silence on the two examinations. I could not find any reference to the examinations online except for the posts ahead of the examinations. I believe it’s not just the embarrassment from the revelation that cheating propped up the Grade 6 NAT results which makes the DepEd want to close its mind to the aftermath of the change in NAT schedule but more so the meaning of the MPS of the last two NATs on the effectivity of the efforts of the DepEd to improve the quality of education in the county. The new numbers are not very pretty: 40.71 MPS for Grade 6 and 43.71 MPS for Grade 10. Below 50 MPS is described as “low mastery of the subject.” The target of the DepEd is 75 MPS or “mastery of the subject.”
Back on the issue of cheating in the NAT, it really beats me how come it never occurred to DepEd to validate the scores of the students of high NAT performing schools specially the most unlikely settings by giving another standard tests or any other tests meant to prove if the NAT scores are for real or not. Or just by comparing with the class performance of the students. This would have prevented the culture of dishonesty from taking root and flourishing such that for more than a decade, the DepEd in CARAGA basked in the accolades of being the undisputed NAT champion in the country in both Grades 6 and 10 only to be exposed as fake by the simple re-scheduling of the tests.
No wonder the DepEd is straining to keep what happened in the last two NATs under wraps.**
