State-run think tank Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) has called for sweeping reforms in the Department of Education’s (DepEd) national assessment system, urging stronger test development, quality assurance, and data utilization to better support student learning and guide policy decisions.

In a Sept. 15 discussion paper titled “Examining the DepEd’s National Assessments: A Review of Framework, Design, Development, Psychometric Properties, and Utilization,” PIDS researchers Kevin Carl P. Santos, Louie P. Cagasan Jr., Karizza Bianca Loberiza, Alvin D. Tenorio, Ann Jelin G. Gonzales, and May Ann B. Lapitan recommended a clearer assessment framework, improved item development processes, and more transparent governance of the Bureau of Education Assessment (BEA).

PIDS stressed the need for a cohesive assessment framework that clearly defines the purpose and use of national assessments for different stakeholders.

The framework, it said, should align both system and classroom assessments, link with the Enhanced Basic Education Act, and include both local and international programs.

It should also establish national proficiency standards, ensure regular review cycles—similar to Australia’s three-year framework review—and explicitly outline how student learning will be tracked across key stages, the think tank added.

For PIDS, participation in international assessments for benchmarking should also be guaranteed.

“The overall assessment framework should be connected to national goals and policy context (such as the Enhanced Basic Education Act),” the study said. “The different assessment programs, both local and international, should also be included.”

The study flagged concerns with the quality of test items in current exit assessments. PIDS recommended piloting more items during the pre-validation phase to give BEA a wider pool of reliable questions.

It also urged the adoption of item response theory (IRT) to improve item statistics and strengthen quality control in reviewing, revising, and selecting test questions.

On proficiency level descriptions (PLDs), PIDS found those currently used for the National Achievement Test (NAT) and the Early Language, Literacy, and Numeracy Assessment (ELLNA) to be too limited.

It recommended that BEA conduct standard-setting procedures with input from curriculum experts, learning delivery specialists, and the academic community.

PIDS further suggested providing tentative PLDs to item writers at the start of test development, especially if these will be integrated into score reporting.

According to the study, BEA is unable to monitor learners’ progress longitudinally because current exit assessments are not psychometrically linked.

PIDS said this gap could be addressed by including common test items across key stages and equipping BEA with the capacity to apply appropriate statistical analyses.

“The assessment framework should clearly state how the national assessments can track student learning across key stages,” PIDS added.

On governance, PIDS highlighted the importance of protecting BEA from political influence to ensure independence and transparency in reporting learning outcomes.

Options include making BEA an attached agency of DepEd or granting it legislated annual funding for assessment administration.

Another possible path, the study added, is transforming BEA into an entirely independent assessment agency.

PIDS recommended that BEA prioritize system-level assessments, such as the NAT and ELLNA, which are vital for evaluating the effectiveness and equity of the basic education system.

It also advised BEA to continue managing high-stakes tests like the National Career Assessment Examination (NCAE), the Philippine Educational Placement Test (PEPT), and the Alternative Learning System Accreditation and Equivalency (A&E) test.

Meanwhile, “classroom-based diagnostic tools—including the Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA), the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI), and the Rapid Mathematics Assessment (RMA),” PIDS said, “should remain under the purview of schools and local education offices.”

BEA’s role, PIDS said, should focus on providing technical guidance and quality assurance when necessary.

Finally, the study emphasized that classroom and school-managed summative assessments should be decentralized, empowering teachers to adapt them to learners’ needs while remaining aligned with national standards.

PIDS underscored that these recommendations collectively aim to make the national assessment system more accurate, reliable, and useful, thereby improving student outcomes and strengthening evidence-based policymaking in Philippine basic education.

(Ricardo M. Austria)