For more than a decade now, there are non-readers in our public high schools, something that was unheard of and unthinkable in this country until then. So far, five regional offices of the Department of Education (DepEd) namely NCR and Regions IV-A, X, XI and XII  have admitted  having such unfortunate students. (We will publish the memos containing their responses to the problem.)  

            Last February, in its report “Pressures on public school teachers and implications on Quality,” state brain thrust Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) blew the lid on the abnormality  by suggesting to  the DepEd to take a firmer stand against the practice of allowing non-readers to proceed to high school. (Report will be posted.)

            And  last August,  after evading  the embarrassing reality for more than a year,  the DepEd national office broke its silence on the subject. In a letter to concerned citizens in Tabuk City dated August 8, 2019,   Undersecretary  for Curriculum and Instruction  Diosdado San Antonio  wrote: “For example, the existence of nonreaders in high school, which you raised in your letter, does not go unnoticed by the Department. In fact, alleviating such predicament right on the early stages of learning has been a foremost concern.”  (We will post the letter.)

            The letter of   San Antonio stemmed from the above-stated report of the PIDS.

             Sadly, however, the admission of San Antonio did not signal any concrete action to end the problem. Secretary Leonor Briones has informed the House  and the media that the agency is  reviewing the K-12 but there is no mention of  the reading crisis. This is  consistent with the  fact they have kept their deafening silence on the issue for more than a year after the first  media expose on  the anomaly in early 2018.  Worth noting is that during the March 6, 2019 Senate hearing on the state of education, the representative of the DepEd  said they will look into the issues raised by the PIDS but  the recommendation on reading was not included in the list. The agency still has to comment on the PIDS recommendation.  

             It is also incredible for DepEd officials to claim it was only recently that it become aware of the presence of non-readers in high school. Even more unbelievable is why they did nothing about  it even after the PIDS told them it is wrong to allow non-readers to graduate from the elementary.  They ignored the problem even if  the existence of non-readers and  frustration level readers in the secondary proves that DepEd  programs on reading  namely, the Every Child a Reader Program (ECARP), the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory  (Phil-IRI) and the K-12 itself are failing. The intent of the ECARP is to make every child an independent reader by Grade 3 and the Phil-IRI, a nationally validated reading proficiency assessment tool, is intended to strengthen the implementation of the ECARP. Implemented properly therefore,  these programs would ensure no non-reader will get past Grade 3. Under DepEd Order No. 021, series of 2019, setting forth the policy guidelines for the K-12,  reading in English is included among the competencies to be attained in Grade 2. Under the K-12, English is the last language  the child has to learn.

            The DepEd also knows that in private schools, children still learn to read in Grade 1 or even in the Kindergarten.  Most importantly, majority of public school children could read when  they enter Grade 4 which begs the question: Why cannot the DepEd successfully teach all mentally normal children how to read at the grade prescribed by the curriculum when  it was able to make them all read in  Grade 1 in the past?

            Based on our research, the  effectiveness of  the DepEd in teaching children to read started to unravel after  the scrapping of the “No Read, No Move” policy for Grade 1 and its replacement with  the “Zero non-readers in Grade 4”  policy in 2001. The DepEd is mum as to the history and rationale of the decision. We have written Bureau of Curriculum Development Director Jocelyn Andaya on February 26, 2018 but she has not answered the inquiry. Among others, we asked her if they have studies to prove that the mental capacity of present-day  Filipinos has weakened such that they require more time to learn to read. (We will post the letter.)

             As proof that  the new policy on reading rested on shifting sands, during the presidency of Benigno Aquino III, one of his education agenda was “Every Child  a Reader by Grade 1 in 2016.” In the current administration, the target has been changed  to “Make every Filipino child a  a reader and writer  as his/her grade Level.”  

             Until the DepEd tinkered with the  timeframe and old procedures of teaching literacy, Filipinos learned   to read in Grade 1. Non-readers in Grade 2 were isolated cases. There is therefore no justification whatsoever for young Filipinos  to learn the skill at a much later stage  specially so that under the current curriculum, they are supposed be able to read in Grade 2.  

            Having stated the foregoing, we petition  Congress  to amend to the K-12 Act   or  for executive action to effect the   following:

           1.      reinstatement of  the  “No Read, No Move” policy for Grade 1 with corresponding sanctions for non-compliance to the policy;

            2.      adjustment of the K-12  to free more time for the teaching of reading and likewise restore the the importance the practices which assisted in the learning of reading in the old curriculum but downgraded in the new curriculum such as but not limited to regular spelling activity and adequate dose of memorization work;  

           3.      restoring the old concept and purpose of the Phil-IRI and placing the conduct of thereof in the hands of an independent  and competent  body or for the DepEd to continue administering the test but with the results subject to validation by independent and competent an entity: and

           4.      strengthening the administrative units of  schools to handle reports and other administrative tasks.

           Regarding No. 3, the very fact that we have non-readers beyond Grade 4 upwards  mean that the DepEd was not trustworthy in the administration and/or the utilization of the results of the Phil-IRI. As stated above,  the test was intended to support the ECARP. Furthermore, taking away the  conduct of the Phil-IRI  from the DepEd is consistent with the intention of lessening the load of teachers (No. 4).

            We are calling for the  return to the old concept and purpose of the Phil-IRI because over the years,  the DepEd had underhandedly  altered the measure in such a way it can no longer protect the ECARP standard. (We will post the reasons we say this later.)

            We have learned to read in Grade 1. There is no reason today and tomorrow’s Filipino children will not. Let's restore the “No Read, No Move” policy for Grade 1.