Testing trustworthiness

By Herman M. Lagon

The National Achievement Test (NAT) has long been a cornerstone of the Philippine educational system, intended as a measure of student performance and school effectiveness. Still, like with many long-standing systems, its relevance and integrity have been hotly contested. Still very pertinent today, the scenario described in my 2009 article, “Are we NATs?”—full of charges of statistical improbabilities and cheating—resonates powerfully. More than 15 years later, we continue to have identical problems and question whether we have changed from the past or are destined to regress by it.

In 2009, my article, published in two local newspapers and three private schools as a pooled editorial, exposed the ridiculousness of elementary public schools in Iloilo City occupying the top seats in the NAT, with the first 39 places supposedly controlled by these institutions, therefore relegating private schools, usually regarded as educational powerhouses, to the lower ranks. This situation drew eyebrows, which sparked questions about systematic cheating. Instead of solving the problem, the Department of Education (DepEd) decided not to show in public the school rankings anymore in the years that followed. Fast forward to the present, and the game is shockingly familiar even if the players have evolved. The latest NAT score trends and their questionable validity reflect the worries expressed over a decade ago and imply that the issues are not just recurring but may be somewhat ingrained.

DepEd’s 2015 decision to change the NAT’s timing from the end of the school year to the beginning of the next grade level revealed what many had suspected all along: a notable decline in scores, especially in areas once praised for their great performance. As schools battled to recreate their past success under the new testing schedule, this change revealed the degree of probable manipulation in past years. The sharp drop in scores after the modification tells volumes about the frailty of the system and the extent to which some would have gone to preserve appearances.

Take CARAGA, an area that had led the NAT in consecutive years but saw its Mean Percentage Score (MPS) drop by 52% following a schedule adjustment. Similar declines were noted in other areas, including Eastern Visayas and Western Mindanao, therefore casting more questions on the accuracy of past findings. These numbers imply that the former high marks were more a result of a compromised system than a reflection of student performance; instead, they reflect an uncomfortable reality that calls for us to doubt the situation of education in the country.

The reasons behind this seeming manipulation are diverse and firmly anchored in structural problems. Based on their NAT performance, schools are graded; excellent marks can result in more financing, better resources, and—for teachers—greater opportunities for promotion and even performance-based bonuses. Because teachers and administrators are encouraged to prioritize test results above actual learning in this high-stakes setting, unethical behavior finds a rich footing. Teachers in many studies have seen that the performance-based bonus (PBB) system linked to NAT results aggravates these problems and causes some to act desperately to guarantee the success of their schools or their own professionals.

Furthermore, the NAT’s conformity with more general international tests like the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) highlights the flaws in our educational system. The dismal performance of Filipino students on PISA, which evaluates real-world problem-solving ability, highlights the discrepancy between what NAT tests and what kids need to succeed worldwide. With its emphasis on rote memorization and standardized testing, the NAT neglects to foster the critical thinking and analytical abilities that are more vital in modern society.

The K-12 program was meant to solve these problems by arming pupils with 21st-century-ready abilities. But the declining NAT scores between K-12 implementation point to the program’s still-unmet promise delivery. Logistically, the change has been hampered by poor teacher preparation, a lack of resources, and a curriculum that has yet to entirely match the requirements of the pupils or the expectations of international standards.

Though aspirational in its aims, the K-12 program has failed in its execution. Many of the teachers, who were unprepared for the new curriculum, battled to adjust, and the students—especially those in public schools—were burdened most of this change. The declining NAT scores among Grade 6 and Grade 10 children in the years following the introduction of K-12 sharply remind us that educational change, without appropriate support and resources, can cause more harm than good.

The Sulong Edukalidad program, which seeks to solve the shortcomings in the present curriculum through a thorough evaluation, enhancement of learning settings, and teacher upskilling, is one of the DepEd’s responses to these difficulties. Still, the success of these programs is yet to be seen; the shadow of past mistakes still looms large.

Looking back at the debates around the NAT and considering their ramifications for today, it is evident that integrity, justice, and authentic educational excellence are just as important now as they were in 2009. The NAT, as it exists now, is a faulty tool that has been corrupted by a society that values appearances above reality. Creating an environment where actual learning is valued over mere test results, where students are encouraged to think critically and creatively, and where teachers are supported in their mission to educate, not only to prepare for tests, presents challenges for educators, legislators, and society.

If we are to solve these problems, we have to begin by reassessing the NAT’s place in the larger educational scene. This implies not only changing the test itself to better suit the students’ abilities and knowledge but also fostering a culture of integrity and honesty in our institutions. Whether by administrators, professors, or students, cheating is a sign of a deeper malaise—a system that has lost sight of its actual goal.

We have to learn from the past if we are to proceed. A sobering reminder should come from the lessons of the 2009 NAT controversy and the further disclosures on collusion among students and teachers, direct assistance of proctors, exclusion of low-performing students to skip the test, impersonation, answer switching, score manipulation, and other forms of cheating.

We must create an educational system that preserves the highest standards of integrity in all its assessments, promotes learning for its own sake, fosters a love of knowledge in our children, and supports their education.

In essence, the NAT is a test of the credibility of our educational system as much as of intellectual ability. The claims of cheating, the statistical oddities, and the continuous arguments on its validity all point to a system that requires change. More importantly, though, they draw attention to the need for a national dialogue on what we value in education and how we could best help our children reach their potential. Let us look to the future with a fresh dedication to creating an educational system that meets every Filipino’s requirements as we consider the past.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.