[ANALYSIS] What does ‘at least nearly proficient’ mean in Philippine education?

The proposed 2027 national budget for education includes a target of 'at least nearly proficient' for Filipino learners, raising questions about the adequacy of this benchmark. National plans aim for higher proficiency levels, suggesting that annual budget targets should align with these long-term goals to ensure effective resource allocation and accountability. This is AI-generated. Read the article for full context. Report any errors. As Congress examines the proposed 2027 national budget, there is a seemingly technical line in the performance targets of the Department of Education (DepEd) that deserves an honest question: What does it mean when our target for Filipino learners is to be “at least nearly proficient”? This is not a semantic question. Targets reflect our aspirations. And our aspirations inform our investments. That matters especially now. Education is receiving historically high levels of public investment. After years of chronic underinvestment, Congress and the Executive are finally putting significantly greater resources behind classrooms, teachers, textbooks, nutrition, learning recovery, and other long-standing gaps. So what are we asking those investments to achieve? Under DepEd’s assessment framework, a score of 75% to 89% is Proficient, while 50% to 74% is Nearly Proficient. A nearly proficient learner demonstrates the minimum level of skills expected in areas such as problem-solving, managing information, and analyzing data. What does this mean concretely? For a Grade 6 learner, this could mean being able to understand the main idea and retrieve information from a text, but not yet consistently make deeper inferences, connect ideas, or critically evaluate what is being read. In Mathematics, the learner may solve more straightforward problems using fractions, decimals, percentages, or measurement, but may still struggle to apply these concepts independently when a problem is unfamiliar or requires several steps of reasoning. There are valid reasons to measure this. In the middle of a learning crisis, moving a child from low proficient to nearly proficient is meaningful progress. But should it be our target? This formulation is relatively recent. In 2017, the General Appropriations Act still measured learners who scored “average or better” in the National Achievement Test. DepEd subsequently changed its assessment methodology from “mastery” to “proficiency” in 2018. By the 2020 GAA, the performance indicator had been revised to the formulation we recognize today: the proportion of learners achieving “at least nearly proficient” in the NAT. Six budget cycles later, it is reasonable to ask whether the indicator still captures the learning outcome we now aspire to achieve. The Second Congressional Commission on Education’s (EDCOM 2) examination of DepEd’s own NAT data gives us reason for sobriety. Around 30.5% of Grade 3 learners were proficient or highly proficient. In Grade 6, only 19.6% were. For Grade 10 students, this is much lower at 0.74%. At Grade 12, at the end of 13 years of education, only 0.4% remain. Department Order No. 55, series of 2016, established national assessments precisely to determine whether learners have achieved the standards expected at critical stages of basic education. So what should a Filipino child actually know after six years of schooling? After 10? After 12? And what level of achievement should our country consider success? Our national plans already answer that question. The Philippine Development Plan 2023–2028 — and, importantly, its 2025 Midterm Update — measures progress by the proportion of learners achieving at least Proficient in the NAT. The updated PDP did not lower this benchmark to Nearly Proficient. The National Education and Workforce Development Plan 2026–2035 likewise carries that aspiration forward, targeting an increase in the proportion of Grade 12 learners achieving at least Proficient in the NAT from a baseline of just 0.4% to 90% in 10 years, or by 2035. Both houses of Congress have since adopted the NatPlan and the recommendations of EDCOM 2 as the country’s 10-year framework for education reform. The PDP says proficiency. The NatPlan says proficiency. Why, then, does our annual budget target “at least nearly proficient”? There may be a sound technical explanation. If there is, we should understand it. These targets emerge from the government’s planning and budgeting process involving DepEd, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), and the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev), and are ultimately scrutinized and funded by Congress. But neither are we suggesting that the Philippines can leap from today’s proficiency levels to our desired outcomes overnight. No serious education reform works that way. Even the world’s strongest education systems were built over years, often decades, of sustained reform. Singapore’s transformation, for example, proceeded through successive phases of reform beginning in the 1960s. Even after becoming a top-performing system, Singapore continued improving its Programme for International Student Assessment or PISA performance between 2009 and 2022. Our NatPlan recognizes this reality. Its 90% Grade 12 proficiency goal is for 2035, not next year. The point of a long-term target is precisely to establish the destination, then build a credible annual trajectory toward it. We need sobriety. But sobriety is different from lowering ambition. “Nearly proficient” can therefore remain an important measure of recovery. The 2027 GAA should report it. But it should also separately report how many learners actually reach proficient or highly proficient. More importantly, DepEd, DBM, and DEPDev should align annual budget targets with the proficiency trajectories already established in the PDP and NatPlan — and cost what is required to achieve them. If we need more remediation, let us prioritize it. If we need smaller early-grade classes, let us advocate for resources for them. If textbooks, teacher development, nutrition, or instructional time are the binding constraints, let us put our funds there. Aspiration should determine targets. Targets should determine reforms. And reforms should determine where we place our investments. The question, then, is not whether every Filipino learner can become proficient next year. We know education systems do not transform that quickly. The question is whether proficiency remains our destination — and whether every annual target and every peso we invest is moving us credibly toward it. Our national plans already set that destination. It is only fitting that our annual targets be likewise deliberate — a tool not just for compliance, but for genuine target setting, resourcing, and accountability. – Rappler.com Karol Mark Yee is the executive director of the Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM 2).