The Department of Education Order No. 71, s. 2010 which stipulated the implementation of National Assessment and Grading System Frameworks paved the way of recognizing that assessment plays a vital role in education. Through this, all public schools in the country will be fully guided in reaching their goals and achieving optimal performance. And to be able to fully communicate the students, parents and other stakeholders the framework for grading of students that focus on the level and quality of achievement in terms of competencies and skills.
Assessment is a necessary component of every program. It is particularly so in the case of education programs such as that it aimed at the improvement, reforms and eventually standardization as planned at by the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA 2008-2012) of the DepED. The objectives of assessment are to: 1) assess readiness of learners for subsequent grade/year levels in the education ladder;2) assess the appropriateness, adequacy and timeliness of inputs and processes at each stage/phase of the system;3) identify strengths and weaknesses of a program, with focus on its components-inputs, processes and transactions;4) continuously monitor progress or positive change and improvement in a program; 5) identify gaps and/or duplication in processes, activities and efforts toward attaining the program goals;6) reduce duplication of efforts and investments in material and human resource inputs and processes in the implementation of the program; 7) ensure that quality learning is being affected by the system; 8) provide basis for feedback to all the stakeholders – policy makers, educators, teachers and others; and 9) provide basis for decisions and policy toward sustenance and/or improvement to adapt to emerging needs of the program.
The above intentions are so nice; however, it has been observed that the National Assessment, as well as large scale testing efforts, is not able to give a comprehensive picture, particularly about learners’ skills at the school and division levels, which can lead to policies to correct weaknesses in the delivery of education.
Moreover, based on survey national assessment efforts have also some limitations. Among the restrictions are: 1) Too much reliance on the NAT and very little attention is given to assessment results from the lower levels of the educational hierarchy; 2) Inadequate attention given to assessment concerns at the division and regional levels; 3) Duplication of testing efforts and approaches; and failure to assess effects of remedial actions to obviate poor performance at the lower levels; 4) Too much attention is given to scores but not enough to the scores’ implications for remedial action; 5) The functions of assessment (instructional, diagnostic, developmental, formative, and summative) are not clearly delineated. The diagnostic functions are not followed-up with appropriate remediation; 6) Stakeholders are not made aware of the meanings and implications of the results; 7) Much instructional time is given to reviewing and preparing for the National Achievement Tests; 8) Too much weight is given to objective type testing and very little use of problem solving, performance tests, and qualitative-descriptive measures such as essays, reflections and portfolio assessment; 9) The Report card does not meet the objective of adequately and effectively communicating to students and their parents how the former are performing in the school curriculum; and 10) Current assessment practice does not lead to remediation, reinforcement and motivation strategies toward improving learner performance.
It is just hope that the concern officials who are incharged of assessment particularly the NETRC shall look for some alternatives to address these constraints and that they will not only focus their concerns on the national status but rather go down the school level.
No comments:
Post a Comment