by Elio

Last January 30 and 31, the Department of Education (DepEd) conducted a nationwide test for all grade 12 students, all in both types of public and private schools to “determine if graduating learners are meeting the learning standard in the senior high school curriculum”. In addition, Education Undersecretary Densing also emphasized the fact that the results of the National Achievement Test (NAT) will grant insight into the minimum proficiency rate of all grade 12 students in their core subjects.

Albeit the smooth rollout of the said examination throughout the nation, it is all the more ironic how its reception is for the students who took the respective test. Criticism flying left and right, highlighting certain aspects of the examination, as well as even the booklets themselves, which begs the question: has the NAT really been effective in actuating its intended goal?

Looks Don’t Matter

Upon receiving both editions of the exam booklet, the very first thing that will greet the exam taker is the original date on which the NAT should have been taken—March 2020, when the first wave of the pandemic struck the nation. Although it has been almost three years since the original NAT was intended to be taken, this happenstance raises another question—why hasn’t the government made any alterations to the old NAT exam booklets?

Touching upon the exam questionnaires is yet another issue to be tackled, as many students complain that shading an oblong instead of a circle is wildly inconvenient and is impractical in its own nature, what more with it being more time-consuming?

Department of UnEducation

Though the first parts of the examination booklets cannot be misinterpreted or are in any way fallible (Science and Mathematics), many students noticed that the NAT became progressively worse in its succeeding questions, both formatting and content-wise.

In the lens of formatting, there were a multitude of typographical errors such as “librarry” instead of “library,” repeating choices that leave open-ended questions to students, and violations in basic English grammar and rhetoric that could’ve been written better. Some questions were also ambiguous in their directions by giving random variables without further explanation and asking the students to answer them or form some sort of arrangement with the given variables.

One section of the NAT, was not even that particular section in its own nature, it was seemingly asking the students about their own morality in relation to certain socioeconomic and sociocultural circumstances such as a certain former president’s decisions. The selections were frankly questionable and blatantly pro-government propaganda that convinced the test-takers to see the government’s past efforts in addressing social issues in a more gratifying manner rather than being scrutinizing and critical.

Rather than asking these types of questions, why not conduct a Social Weather Station survey instead? The objective of this question is all the more ambiguous as the right answer could be anything, given the past government’s stances on Philippine politics and history.

Pro-government propaganda, excerpts with no sources, and open-ended questions? In another section, the opening prompt was a somewhat implied problematic portrayal of polygamy, wherein infidelity in a monogamous relationship was justified through the offender being branded by the victim as someone acting on their own nature.

With the blatantly outdated concepts and somewhat exacerbated portrayals of a multitude of concepts alien to the general demographic, the Department of Education, more specifically, the Bureau of Education Assessment (BEA), has made this NAT all the more controversial.  

Final Verdict

Outdated test booklets and content, inconvenient and impractical questionnaires, and questionable questions. Final verdict? The NAT did not achieve its original objectives, it has wasted the resources of the nation and the precious time of the students. The possibility of the NAT being some sort of indoctrination or propaganda is not a far-fetched concept, as evidenced by the many pro-government questions.

Instead of letting the thousands, if not millions of booklets and questionnaires sit pretty at a warehouse, finally seeing the first breath of light after nearly three years, the government could have very well repurposed these materials into a revised version of the NAT. A NAT that is up-to-date with the current Philippine social reality, free, or at the very least, with minimal typographical and grammatical errors.

Another talking point in this discussion is the problematic portrayals of many concepts many are unfamiliar with, an act that further stigmatizes the myriad notions many are not privy. Instead of the blatant act of opening prompts while assuming that the students are no longer strangers to the concepts, it is best if the NAT provided certain contexts, definitions, and analogies with nonpartisan content to better provide an understanding and avoid foreseeable denunciations. 

With that, it is still evident that the NAT was time-inefficient and lacked both depth and breadth in truly assessing the educational state of the nation. It gave off more of a social survey vibe rather than that of a formal assessment as if the government deliberately designed the examination in this form to see if our generation can be manipulated for their own means. Whether schools chose to split the NAT in two days or take it in one go, in the end, it was all for nothing, or rather, all for NATing.