Benchmarks for Reading Performance in the
Philippines
Results of the benchmarking
workshop held on August 27, 2014
INTRODUCTION
On August 27, 2014, USAID’s Education Data for
Decision Making (EdData II) project and Basa
Filipinas Project (Basa) jointly supported a
workshop to use the results from early grade
reading assessments (EGRAs) conducted in the
Philippines to develop benchmarks for reading
performance in the first years of elementary
education. The Philippine Department of Education
(DepEd) assigned staff from the office of the
Undersecretary for Programs and Projects, the
Bureau of Elementary Education, and six regions to
attend this workshop. The regions that participated
included Region I, Region IV-A, the National
Capital Region (NCR), Region VI, Region VII, and
the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM). A total of 49 participants spent the day
examining data from the EGRA surveys conducted
in 2013 and 2014 and used those data to propose
benchmarks for reading performance in grades 1
through 3 for Filipino and English and for four
regional mother tongues: Ilokano, Hiligaynon,
Sinubuanong Binisaya (Cebuano), and
Maguindanaoan.
Data were made available from the national EGRA
survey conducted in February 2013.1 That study
assessed the Filipino and English reading skills of a
sample of grade 3 students drawn from six
geographic areas so as to show results at the
subnational and national levels. The relevant data
for the purposes of the benchmarking workshop
1
The 2013 EGRA report can be found on the EdData II
website:
https://www.eddataglobal.org/countries/index.cfm?fusea
ction=pubDetail&ID=513
1
were the national averages for performance in
Filipino and English (since benchmarks in these
two languages would be for performance across
the whole country). In addition, data from the 2014
EGRA survey of reading performance in four
mother tongues were presented for use in the
workshop.2 The 2014 survey evaluated student
reading achievement in Ilokano (in Region I),
Hiligaynon (in Region VI), Cebuano (in Region VII)
and Maguindanaoan (in ARMM). Data on student
performance in each language were analyzed and
worked with separately so as to develop language-
specific benchmarks.
The approach to benchmarking followed a
methodology developed and used by EdData II in
several other countries. At the heart of this method
is the goal of having children learn to read well
enough and early enough to be able to apply their
reading skill in school and as lifelong learners.
Therefore, the emphasis is not just on the
mechanics of reading, but on developing the ability
to read with understanding. To read with
comprehension, children need to recognize familiar
words with automaticity and decode unfamiliar
ones with minimal effort, group words quickly to
gain meaning from sections of text, and move
effortlessly enough through text to retain what they
have read. These skills are captured in the
assessments of students’ oral reading fluency
(ORF). And the relationship between fluency and
comprehension is well established. In fact, based
on the data from the 2014 survey in the Philippines,
oral reading fluency explains between 65 and 70
percent of the variation in comprehension for all
four languages. The approach for setting
benchmarks therefore looks closely at the data for
each language to identify the specific levels of
reading fluency (particular to each language) that
2
The 2014 EGRA report can be found at:
https://www.eddataglobal.org/countries/index.cfm?fusea
ction=pubDetail&ID=626
correspond to students being more fully able to
comprehend what they read. The types of data
used and the process employed by the workshop
participants are discussed further in the next
section of this report.
One final introductory comment: At the end of the
workshop, the participants were keenly interested
in discussing how the results of their work—
proposed benchmarks for reading comprehension
and oral reading fluency—could be used in some
official capacity by DepEd. Participants were
particularly concerned about being able to engage
a broader cross-section of stakeholders in their
respective regions in understanding the
benchmarks and then building consensus around
them so that the benchmarks could be incorporated
into regional strategies and plans for improving
learning outcomes. At the same time, they
recognized the need to present their recommended
benchmarks to the central leadership within the
Department of Education. Therefore, the group
proposed a process for carrying forward the work
on benchmarks that included the following
sequence of next steps:
 Document the results of the workshop (i.e.,
the writing of this report);
 Share the report with the regional teams,
which would engage the leadership in each
region to validate the results produced in
the workshop;
 Once validated by the regions, transmit the
documentation of the workshop results to
the Bureau of Elementary Education, which
will consolidate the regional benchmarking
recommendations for submission to the
Undersecretary for Programs and Projects;
 The Office of the Undersecretary for
Programs and Projects will make additional
inputs and/or comments as deemed
necessary prior to submitting the proposed
benchmarks to Secretary of Education for
approval;
 Have the benchmarks for reading performance
in Filipino, English, Ilokano, Hiligaynon, Cebu-
ano, and Maguindanaoan officially finalized,
approved, and issued as a DepEd order.
In the context of wishing to respect and support the
above process, the present report was prepared.
The methods and data used at the workshop are
presented next so that as the results are
communicated, others can see how the
2
benchmarks were developed. Following the
methods section are recommendations for reading
performance benchmarks from each of the groups
(i.e., for each of the languages), including
comments from the EdData II team regarding the
proposed benchmarks. Then readers will find the
specific timeline for next steps as proposed by the
workshop participants. The conclusion of the report
discusses some issues worth further consideration.
THE BENCHARMARKING METHODOLOGY
AND PROCESS
As stated above, the workshop was held on August
27, 2014, and included 49 participants. Among
them were 5 to 7 participants from each of the
regions, 5 people from the DepEd central office, 5
people from the Basa Filipinas project, and 2 from
EdData II.3 EdData II and Basa collaborated on a
presentation that reviewed the data from the 2013
and 2014 surveys and that mapped out the process
for developing benchmarks. Almost all the
participants in the benchmarking workshop had
also attended the policy dialogue held on July 23,
2014, during which the results of the 2014 EGRA
study of four mother tongues were presented and
discussed in detail. Therefore, only a quick
overview/review of those findings was necessary.
Following that presentation and questions and
answers related to both the available data and the
proposed methodology, the step-by-step process
was laid out for each group to follow. The
participants were organized into six working groups
according to regional/language affiliation, so that:
 Participants from Region I worked on
benchmarks for reading in Ilokano
 Participants from Region IV-A worked on
benchmarks for reading in Filipino
 Participants from Region VI worked on
benchmarks for reading in Hiligaynon
 Participants from Region VII worked on
benchmarks for reading in Sinubuanong
Binisaya
 Participants from NCR worked on benchmarks
for reading in English
 Participants from ARMM worked on
benchmarks for reading in Maguindanaoan
The process of setting the benchmarks was
recognized to be in part analytical and in part
3
A full list of participants and their affiliations is included
in Annex A to this report.
common sense. Participants had to combine
information from the reading assessments with
their knowledge of what is possible in Philippine
classrooms, bearing in mind in particular the
current difficulties administrators, teachers, and
students face in implementing the new mother-
tongue based multilingual education (MTB-MLE)
curriculum. The objectives of MTB-MLE regarding
acquisition of literacy in mother tongue, Filipino,
and English were another important piece of
information that participants took into account. In
fact, those curricular objectives served as important
starting points for determining when students
should be reading with comprehension in each
language. MTB-MLE stipulates the following
expectations. Students should:
 Read and write in mother tongue by the end of
grade 1 and continue literacy development
through grade 3.
 Begin reading Filipino in the latter part of
grade 1, be reading and writing in Filipino in
grade 2, and continue their literacy
development in grade 3.
 Begin reading English in the second semester
of grade 2 and be reading and writing in English
in grade 3.
Each group was charged with developing
benchmarks for reading comprehension and oral
reading fluency for the relevant grades for the
language on which they were working. Therefore,
workshop participants aimed to establish
benchmarks for reading fluency and
comprehension for mother tongues for grades 1
through 3, for Filipino for grades 2 and 3, and for
English for grades 2 and 3.
In addition to the curriculum objectives defined by
MTB-MLE, data from the EGRA surveys were the
most important input to each group’s work. For
each language, participants were given a graphic
summary of the relationship between oral reading
fluency and comprehension. Box-and-whisker plots
were used to show the ranges of reading fluencies
associated with different levels of comprehension.
The levels of comprehension were defined by the
number of questions students answered correctly
(from 0 through 5). In addition, tables summarizing
the quartile distributions were provided. The data in
the tables corresponded to the 25th, 50th, and 75th
percentiles of the oral reading fluency ranges for
each level of comprehension. The box-and-whisker
plots and accompanying table for Cebuano are
included as an example in Annex B to this
3
document. In addition, each group was given
cumulative distribution tables for comprehension
and oral reading fluency for grades 1 and 2 for
mother tongues and for grade 3 for Filipino and
English. These tables showed the percentage of
students reaching or exceeding different levels of
performance, so that when considering different
levels for a benchmark, each group could take into
account the percentage of students presently
meeting those levels (and thus weigh how
ambitious the benchmark would be).
Each working group was charged with defining the
following for reading comprehension (defined as
the percentage of correct responses students
should attain) and for oral reading fluency (defined
as the number of words of grade-level text a child
should read correctly per minute):
 A long-range goal
 A benchmark (which might or might not be
different from the long-range goal)
 The percentage of students who would meet
the benchmark by the end of school year (SY)
2015–2016
 The percentage of students who would score
zero by the end of SY 2015–2016
Groups working on benchmarks for mother tongues
began working on grade 2, then worked backward
from grade 2 to set benchmarks for grade 1, and
worked forward from grade 2 to set benchmarks for
grade 3. For the mother tongues, the 2014 survey
provided data for grades 1 and 2. For grade 3
benchmarks, the working groups had to assume an
additional year of “growth” in student performance.
For Filipino and English, the groups began working
on grade 3, and then worked backward to set
benchmarks for grade 2. In this case, the 2013
survey provided data on grade 3 performance, so
groups had to “subtract” from the grade 3
benchmarks to obtain what they assumed to be
what one year less of reading skill development
would equate to.
THE BENCHMARKING RESULTS
The results of each group’s work are presented in
the tables included in this section of the report. The
information is organized to show the four outputs
defined by each group, for each relevant grade, for
the two key indicators: reading comprehension and
oral reading fluency. The outputs include the long-
range goal, the nearer-term benchmark (assuming
a target date of the end of the 2015–2016 school
year), the percentage of students who would be Table 1. Proposed benchmarks for Ilokano
meeting that benchmark, and the percentage of Ilokano Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
students who would score zero at the end of 2015– Comp. ORF Comp. ORF Comp. ORF
2016. The tables also include the levels of (% cor.) (cwpm) (% cor.) (cwpm) (% cor.) (cwpm)
performance as measured by either the 2013 or Average – 2014 data 17% 15 45% 30
2014 EGRA survey (in the shaded rows). These
Long-range goal 80% 40 80% 50 80% 60
existing data are presented to allow comparison of
Benchmark – end of 2015-16 60% 30 80% 40 80% 50
the projected benchmarks to current levels of
performance as one means to judge how ambitious
or conservative the groups were being in setting % Meeting Benchmark – 2014 data 16% 21% 29% 35%

their targets. % Meeting Benchmark – by end of 2015-16 75% 72% 86% 86% 97% 100%

In the cases where the groups did provide

justification for their work, the table of benchmarks
is followed by a short summary of what that group
presented as its rationale for the chosen
benchmarks. The reflections, comments, and
recommendations regarding the benchmarks are
summarized and presented as well.
The group from Region I that set benchmarks for
Ilokano reading (Table 1) felt they were being
ambitious. They justified benchmarks that far
exceeded the existing levels of performance in both
grade 1 and 2 based on the confidence they placed
in both current and future efforts aimed at
improving early grade reading. They cited several
existing reading programs (Basa Filipinas, Tan-
Yan-Kee, Beginning Reading, Reading Readiness,
and Bright Minds Read, to name a few) and
existing strategies for teacher training and
development of instructional materials, as well as
future efforts aimed at creating strong advocacy for
Ilokano literacy, sound monitoring and evaluation of
student outcomes, and provision of technical
assistance to schools on improved reading
instruction.
In comparing the proposed comprehension
benchmarks to the results from 2014, it is clear that
the benchmarks for comprehension, proposed at
60% for grade 1 and 80% for grade 2, are
considerably higher than the average performances
of students in the preceding school year (average
percent correct of 17% in grade 1 and 45% in
grade 2). Also, the projected percentages of
students meeting the benchmark by the end of SY
2015–2016 represent an impressive improvement
over the current share of students able to achieve
60% and 80% comprehension in grades 1 and 2.
% Scoring Zero – 2014 data 65% 33% 29% 13%
% Scoring Zero – by end of 2015-16 28% 20% 14% 10% 0% 0%
Note that cwpm stands for correct words per minute.
Regarding the benchmarks for oral reading fluency,
the levels proposed for grades 1 and 2, while also
above the averages from 2014, were less
ambitious. One way to evaluate the ORF
benchmarks is to compare what is proposed to
what the existing data show, using the range of
reading fluency scores that correspond to the
benchmark levels of comprehension. For grade 1,
most students who achieved 60% comprehension
had ORF scores between 32 and 37 correct words
per minute (cwpm). The group proposed a
benchmark below that range. For grade 2, 80%
comprehension corresponds to ORF of from 35 to
46 cwpm. The proposed benchmark is in fact right
at the median of the scores of students who had
80% comprehension in the past school year.
The group also chose to be ambitious in projecting
reductions in zero scores for comprehension,
cutting the present levels of zero scores by more
than half in each grade. They also proposed a
significant reduction in zero scores for reading
fluency in grade 1, but less so in grade 2. They did
foresee complete elimination of zero scores and
more or less 100% achievement of benchmarks by
grade 3.
A final comment regarding the proposed Ilokano
benchmarks and targets concerns the grade-to-
grade progression inherent in the group’s output.
The group foresaw a rise in the comprehension
standard from 60% to 80% from grade 1 to grade 2,
and then maintenance of that level of performance
as the standard for grade 3. This seems
reasonable. Full comprehension (100% correct) is
of course desirable, but the difference between 4
out of 5 correct compared to 5 out of 5 correct
implies a level of precision that the EGRA
instrument probably does not provide. Regarding

4
ORF, the group essentially assumed a grade-to-
grade improvement of 10 cwpm, which is at the
lower end of what EGRA studies in many countries
have revealed. In fact, the 2014 data from Region I
showed a difference of 15 cwpm between the
grade 1 and grade 2 average reading fluencies.
The Region VI group chose not to set Hiligaynon
benchmarks for grade 3 (Table 2), and the issue of
whether benchmarks for mother tongue are needed
and would be used beyond grade 2 is one that
DepEd should consider (discussed further in the
conclusion to this report). They also expressed that
they were being cautious in setting their targets, as
the levels of performance revealed by the 2014
EGRA were much lower than they would have
expected.
Table 2. Proposed benchmarks for Hiligaynon
Hiligaynon Grade 1
Comp. ORF
For grade 2, the Region VI group set higher
expectations for both comprehension and ORF,
and the proposed level of reading fluency did fall
within the range of scores that corresponded with
60% comprehension in the 2014 data. But here
also, the group’s proposed long-range goal may be
a better benchmark. Again, the proposed
percentage of students meeting the comprehension
benchmark is below the demonstrated existing
level of performance, and for fluency does not
project very strong improvement.
For zero scores, this group was less ambitious than
all the others in projecting targets for reducing the
percentage of students at the bottom of the
distribution, especially in grade 1.
The group from Region VII, like their colleagues
from Region VI, chose to set lower comprehension
Grade 2 Grade 3
benchmarks for Cebuano in both grades 1 and 2 –
40% and 60% respectively (Table 3). They did set
Comp. ORF Comp. ORF

(% cor.) (cwpm) (% cor.) (cwpm) (% cor.) (cwpm)

the long-range goal of 80% comprehension in
those grades, and 100% comprehension in
Average – 2014 data 15% 13 42% 32
grade 3, which would be more reflective of students
Long-range goal 60% 25 80% 50
being able to fully comprehend what they read.
Benchmark – end of 2015-16 40% 20 62% 45

Table 3. Proposed benchmarks for Cebuano

% Meeting Benchmark – 2014 data 24% 31% 44% 34%

% Meeting Benchmark – by end of 2015-16 25% 50% 30% 50% Cebuano Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

Comp. ORF Comp. ORF Comp. ORF

% Scoring Zero – 2014 data 64% 44% 31% 22% (% cor.) (cwpm) (% cor.) (cwpm) (% cor.) (cwpm)

% Scoring Zero – by end of 2015-16 40% 25% 15% 10% Average – 2014 data 26% 21 53% 41 na na

Note that cwpm stands for correct words per minute. Long-range goal 80% 45 80% 50 100% 55

Benchmark – end of 2015-16 40% 32 60% 42 80% 55

A couple of things stand out in this group’s output.

% Meeting Benchmark – 2014 data 38% 33% 54% 54% na na
Regarding grade 1, the benchmark of only 40%
% Meeting Benchmark – by end of 2015-16 20% 40% 25% 50% 30% 50%
comprehension is something worth reconsidering,
as it would mean that children were able to answer
only 2 out of 5 questions correctly. The long-range % Scoring Zero – 2014 data 49% 22% 19% 8% na na

goal may be more appropriate as a benchmark. % Scoring Zero – by end of 2015-16 25% 15% 15% 5% 10% 5%

And the level of oral reading fluency proposed is Note that cwpm stands for correct words per minute.

below the range of scores that corresponded to

even that low level of comprehension (2014 data
The justification offered for setting a lower standard
showed ORF from 25 to 42 cwpm as the middle
for comprehension was the concern the group had
50% of the distribution of scores associated with
for the percentage of students scoring zero on this
40% comprehension). Additionally, the proposed
skill. Also, the group cited the diversity of versions
percentage of students meeting the 40%
of Sinugbuanong Binisaya spoken across the
comprehension level is just below the percentage
region as another concern that tempered their
that did so in the past school year. If the choice is
ambition. And, while they were optimistic about the
to set the benchmark lower (i.e., at 40%
impact that a program like Basa Filipinas can have
comprehension as done here, instead of 60% or
in their region, they were concerned that it was
80%), then it would be recommended to be more
intervening in only 3 of their 19 divisions.
ambitious regarding the proportion of students who
would be able to meet that benchmark. In setting the targets for the percentages of
students meeting the proposed benchmarks by the

5
end of the 2015–2016 school year, this group programs specifically targeted to reducing
proposed some targets below the levels shown in nonreaders, conducting intensive trainings for
the data from the past school year. For this group, teachers focused on mother tongue reading, and
and probably for Region VI as well, it would appear providing coaching and mentoring for teachers and
that the low targets resulted from a misreading of instructional supervision all focused on MTB-MLE
the distribution tables for comprehension. implementation.
Therefore it is suggested that those values be
revisited, taking into account the correct 2014 Table 4. Proposed benchmarks for Maguin-
values shown in the tables included in this report. It dinaoan
is suggested that all groups consider the trade-off Maguindinaoan Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

between a lower benchmark and a higher Comp. ORF Comp. ORF Comp. ORF

percentage projected to meet the benchmark, (% cor.) (cwpm) (% cor.) (cwpm) (% cor.) (cwpm)

versus a higher benchmark with a somewhat lower Average – 2014 data 8% 7 27% 21

percentage projected to meet it. Long-range goal 80% 50 80% 60

Benchmark – end of 2015-16 70% 35 60% 40

The proposed benchmark for ORF for grade 3 also
appears low, when one considers the grade-to-
% Meeting Benchmark – 2014 data 6% 4% 27% 22%
grade progression they imply. From grade 1 to
% Meeting Benchmark – by end of 2015-16 25% 50% 25% 50%
grade 2, average performance in 2014 improved by
20 cwpm. This group proposed benchmarks that
reflect a 10 cwpm increase from grade 1 to grade 2 % Scoring Zero – 2014 data 82% 66% 50% 38%

(and only a 5 cwpm difference in the long-range % Scoring Zero – by end of 2015-16 40% 20% 25% 15%

goals), and a 13 cwpm increase from grade 2 to Note that cwpm stands for correct words per minute.

grade 3 (a difference of only 5 cwpm again in the

long-range goals). Future discussion and revision
to these benchmarks may wish to consider a more
ambitious rate of improvement resulting from each
additional year of instruction. A similar issue is
present when looking at the projected targets for
the percentages of students meeting the
benchmarks in grade 3. Little improvement is
assumed in these targets for either comprehension
or fluency, and zero scores are projected to reduce
only slightly for comprehension, and to remain
unchanged for ORF. The group was concerned that
improvement would face many challenges, given in
particular the diversity of dialects of the language
spoken across the region. A strategy to specifically
address that challenge might enable the group to
set benchmarks and targets that would be more
ambitious.
The team from ARMM proposed Maguindinaoan
benchmarks for grade 1 (Table 4) that are
ambitious when compared to the levels of
performance reflected in the data from 2014. The
levels of comprehension and fluency would be well
above the existing averages, and the percentages
of students meeting the proposed benchmarks
represent substantial gains over existing
performance, as do the proposed reductions in
zero scores (reducing zeros on comprehension by
more than half and on fluency by more than two
thirds). The group justified its ambition based on
several strategies they propose: establishing
The ARMM team’s output for grade 2 was less
ambitious. The grade 2 benchmark they proposed
for comprehension was, in fact, lower than what
they proposed for grade 1, and the author wonders
if this was due to a transcription error. Regarding
the target proportion of students meeting the
benchmark of 60% comprehension, the group
proposed the same values as for grade 1, which
actually is below the percentage of students who
obtained that comprehension score on the 2014
EGRA. For fluency, the group’s proposed target of
40 cwpm is within the range of scores associated
with 60% comprehension. The long-range ORF
goal would be more aligned with even higher levels
of comprehension (100%). The group proposed to
double the percentage of students reaching 40
cwpm by the end of SY 2015–2016 and proposed
continued, dramatic reductions in zero scores for
both comprehension and ORF.
The relevant data available for benchmarking in
Filipino (Table 5) were only for grade 3, so the
group from Region IV-A that worked on these
benchmarks started by setting standards for that
grade. The proposed benchmark, and especially
the long-range goal, is above the average level of
reading comprehension achieved by students in
2013. This is especially the case when the
benchmark for ORF is compared to the data from
2013.

6
Table 5. Proposed benchmarks for Filipino However, for comprehension, the transition from L1
to L2 is more difficult, as children need to build up
Filipino Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
sufficient working knowledge of Filipino as a
Comp. ORF Comp. ORF Comp. ORF
second language to be able to more fully
(% cor.) (cwpm) (% cor.) (cwpm) (% cor.) (cwpm)
comprehend what they read (and do so with only 2
Average – 2013 data 73% 68
years of instruction in that language).
Long-range goal 80% 75 100% 90

Benchmark – end of 2015-16 65% 60 75% 80 The group did propose eliminating zero scores in
grade 3, and indicated an expectation that 10% of
% Meeting Benchmark – 2013 data 70% 37% students might struggle to make the transition into
% Meeting Benchmark – by end of 2015-16 75% 65% 75% 80% Filipino in grade 2, and hence score at the bottom
of the distribution for both comprehension and
% Scoring Zero – 2013 data 6% 1%
fluency. The proposed benchmarks for grade 2—at
% Scoring Zero – by end of 2015-16 10% 10% 0% 0%
65% comprehension and 60 cwpm—seem
Note that cwpm stands for correct words per minute.
reasonable given all the issues mentioned above.
And a progression from 60 to 80 cwpm from grade
Even though the cohort tested in grade 3 in that 2 to grade 3 implies that performance will increase
year were students who had had three years of dramatically as students gain more practice in
instruction in Filipino, this group felt that current Filipino.
grade 1 students—who would have had only two
years of Filipino instruction when they reached The team from NCR that worked on setting
grade 3—could still demonstrate improved benchmarks and targets for English (Table 6)
performance. The groups reasoned that by the end recognized the challenge the system now faces in
of the 2015–2016 school year, schools, teachers, trying to build sufficient facility in English for
and students would have more experience with students to be able to read with comprehension by
MTB-MLE and the transition to Filipino, and grade 3. Given how low reading comprehension
teachers would have the tools and activities they was in English in 2013, when students would have
needed to provide effective instruction. The group been receiving English instruction starting in
also wanted to establish a strong standard that grade 1, the group was concerned about how
would reflect outstanding performance, and they
Table 6. Proposed benchmarks for English
were confident that teachers could have effective Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
English
strategies, for example, for addressing the needs of
Comp. ORF Comp. ORF Comp. ORF
the few students at the bottom of the distribution
(% cor.) (cwpm) (% cor.) (cwpm) (% cor.) (cwpm)
(zero scores).
Average – 2013 data 32% 67

However, the benchmark proposed for reading Long-range goal 60% 60 80% 75

comprehension in grade 3—at 75%—is not Benchmark – end of 2015-16 40% 40 60% 70

appreciably higher than the average obtained by

students in 2013. One could argue that MTB-MLE % Meeting Benchmark – 2013 data 40% 49%

reduces the amount of instruction in Filipino to % Meeting Benchmark – by end of 2015-16 30% 30% 40% 60%

allow for instruction in mother tongue, and that

therefore grade 3 students will have had less time % Scoring Zero – 2013 data 37% 1%
learning to read in Filipino, and will have had to % Scoring Zero – by end of 2015-16 30% 30% 15% 1%
weather a transition from their first to a second Note that cwpm stands for correct words per minute.
language (L1 to L2). Similarly, for the target
percentage meeting the benchmark, the group
proposed a value only slightly higher than what was realistic their benchmarks were in the context of
achieved in 2013. This was not the case for the MTB-MLE, and English being learned starting only
benchmark and target for ORF, however. Here the in grade 2. Even so, the group proposed
group proposed a benchmark that exceeded the benchmarks that exceeded the grade 3 levels of
average from 2013, and projected a much greater performance achieved in 2013. For comprehension
percentage of students able to meet the higher in particular, the benchmark of 60% is almost
standard. Again, the reasoning here may be that for double what the average percent correct was in
fluency, skills will transfer easily from mother 2013. Perhaps that is why the group envisioned
tongue to Filipino, as the mechanics of reading in only 40% of students being able to meet that
most Philippine languages are very similar. benchmark by the end of SY 2015–2016. For

7
comprehension, the NCR team also projected a
significant reduction in zero scores in grade 3,
targeting having less than half the proportion of
students scoring zero as did so in 2013.
In working backward to set standards for grade 2,
the group proposed a benchmark of only 40%
comprehension and only 40 cwpm for fluency. This
latter value actually falls well below the range of
fluency scores that were associated with 40%
comprehension in 2013 (from 61 to 92 cwpm).
Students being able to better comprehend what
they are reading, even at lower levels of fluency,
may be obtainable if the level of text students are
asked to read in grade 2 is considerably lower than
what they were asked to read in grade 3 in 2013.
Note that one could even ask, given how late
English instruction is slated to begin under MTB-
MLE, whether it makes sense to have English
benchmarks for grade 2.
NEXT STEPS
As mentioned in the introduction to this report, the
participants took time at the end of the workshop to
discuss the process which they thought could best
ensure that the proposed benchmarks would
receive the appropriate reviews, both in the regions
and by DepEd central, prior to be being put forward
as official policy. In particular, representatives of
DepEd central offices and of each of the regions all
agreed on the importance of establishing a clear
timeline and process for carrying forward the
benchmarks being proposed at the workshop.
The participants took into account several issues
when outlining such a process. First, the group
agreed that a finalized set of recommended
benchmarks should be put before the Executive
Committee of DepEd before the end of October
2014. This was suggested so that there would be
ample time to consider the proposed standards
before they would be released late in the 2014
calendar year. Additionally, the regional groups all
wanted to solicit feedback and broker the buy-in of
their colleagues back in their respective regions.
Finally, the writing of this report afforded an
opportunity to provide some initial feedback, purely
from a technical standpoint, hoping to ensure that
all aspects of the data were considered by the
teams during the very busy workshop.
With that in mind, the proposed next steps and
timeline are presented in Table 7.
8
Table 7. Next steps and timeline
Date Activity
1 Before Sept. 12, 2014 PhilED Data Project/ RTI International will prepare the
report and as suggested will share the benchmarking report
with the regional teams
2 Before End Sept. 2014 The mother tongue regional teams will review the
benchmarking report with their respective regional
directors for their information, additional input/support,
leading to finalization and endorsement of the
proposed/recommended benchmarks, which would then
be officially submitted to the Bureau of Elementary
Education at Central Office
3 Before End Oct. 2014 The BEE Central Office will consolidate/compile the regional
benchmarking recommendations and then submit to Usec.
Dina Ocampo for their information, additional
inputs/comments as maybe necessary and recommend the
same for DepED Secretary’s approval and issuance of
DepED Order
4 December 2014 Benchmarks for reading performance officially crafted,
approved and issued by DepEd
The participants identified several concerns when
considering how best to move forward from the
initial output produced at the workshop to the
issuance of official benchmarks for reading
performance. The group recognized that the DepEd
central office would need to be the final arbiter of
the standards—validating and strengthening them
where necessary. However, the group of
participants also recognized the need to enlist the
support and input of regional management
committees, as well as of other technical staff at
the regional level. For ARMM, given its
autonomous status, the group was concerned that
the Regional Secretary would also need to review,
comment on, and officially accept any standards.
Lastly, the group stressed that if the standards
were to be applied, then DepEd would need to
ensure ongoing assessment to evaluate progress
using those standards. Therefore, the group
recommended that EGRAs be administered
annually, so as to evaluate mother tongue reading
at the end of grade 1, Filipino by the end of
grade 2, and English reading in grade 3.
CONCLUSIONS
The output from the workshop represented a good
first draft of benchmarks and targets for reading
performance in these six languages. In reviewing
the work of the participants and reflecting on the
discussions held during the workshop, the author of
this report saw several issues worth considering as
DepEd makes use of the work of these groups to
move forward in setting benchmarks.
First, one needs to consider which benchmarks are
needed for which grades. From the start, a
parsimonious approach to benchmarking was
pursued. For example, since oral reading fluency
represents a higher-order skill that encompasses
the other important reading skills students are
developing, it was assumed that a benchmark in
fluency would indicate whether students were also
building skills in other areas, such as phonemic
awareness, decoding, familiar word recognition,
and reading accuracy. Therefore it was not
necessary to have benchmarks for these other skill
areas.4 Furthermore, because comprehension and
fluency are strongly correlated, it is worth asking
whether benchmarks are needed for both. At the
workshop, comprehension benchmarks were used
to identify the ranges of reading fluency that
corresponded to the desired level of understanding.
While one could argue that having a fluency
benchmark therefore would also “indicate” a level
of comprehension, this author recommends
strongly that comprehension continue to be
measured and monitored separately, to make sure
that children are not just becoming mechanical
readers.
Continuing to take a parsimonious approach, it is
worth asking in which grades benchmarks should
be set for the different languages. Here, what is
important to consider is how best to monitor
whether the MTB-MLE expectations for literacy
acquisition in all three languages are being met.
Clearly, benchmarks are needed to monitor the
development of reading in mother tongues in
grades 1 and 2. For Filipino, benchmarks are
needed to monitor whether literacy skills are being
transferred from mother tongue in grade 2. And it
could be argued that they are also needed for
grade 3 to ensure that students are consolidating
their skills in a language that will continue to be
used as a medium of instruction in upper
elementary grades and beyond. For English, the
issue is whether benchmarks (and hence
monitoring of progress) are needed at all in
grade 2. Benchmarks for English obviously are
needed for grade 3.
4
Of course, not having benchmarks for those skills does
not mean that teachers have no interest in assessing
whether their students are developing all the skills
needed to be good readers. The important distinction to
make is between benchmarks that could be used for
monitoring system progress—which is what this work
aimed at—versus those teachers would use to evaluate
individual student or class progress in building reading
skills.
9
Another issue that arises when considering setting
benchmarks and targets for how many children will
meet them is how to manage the trade-off between
these two standards. One can choose to set a high
benchmark; but then it is necessary to be realistic
about the percentage of students who would be
able to achieve that level of performance. For
example, the group from Region I set a benchmark
for Ilokano grade 2 oral reading fluency of 40
cwpm. This was higher than the 2014 average, so
may be considered reasonable in terms of
expectations for improvement. However, the group
then proposed that 86% of grade 2 students be
able to meet or exceed that benchmark in 2 years.
That stands in contrast to only 35% of students
having been able to read at 40 cwpm in the past
school year. If one wishes to maintain a relatively
high standard, then further discussions could focus
on whether it is reasonable to assume that
teachers could more than double the percentage of
their students able to meet that benchmark.5
The opposite approach would be to set the
benchmark lower, while being ambitious about how
many students would be able to meet or exceed it.
This may be valid in some circumstances, but when
considering whether to take this approach, it is
important to bear in mind that the benchmark
should represent at least a minimally acceptable
level of performance. In fact, some would argue
that the benchmark should represent the desired
level of high performance.
Lastly, an issue that came up during the workshop
concerned the level of text that students were
expected to be reading at benchmark levels. This is
of concern for two reasons. First, when setting
benchmarks, it is recommended that the level of
text for which the benchmark is set be well-defined.
Are grade 1 benchmarks based on reading grade 1
level material, grade 2 based on reading grade 2
level material, etc.? Second, DepEd therefore
needs to produce and reinforce standards for what
constitutes grade-appropriate text in each
language. Participants evinced a fear that unless
there are clear standards for grade-level text,
schools could evaluate student performance using
reading material that is below what should be read
in a given grade (e.g., testing grade 3 students on
grade 2 material).
5
Note, the Ilokano example is used here simply to
illustrate the point about the trade-off between the
benchmark and the target percentage meeting it. It does
not imply that the author is recommending a particular
benchmark or target for Ilokano reading.
With appropriate review and additional input and
analysis, it is hoped that these initial benchmarks
can be honed and finalized as foreseen in the
process laid out in the previous section. How
DepEd can conduct such work for the other mother
tongues currently being used both as media of
instruction and as languages of literacy remains an
open question.
CONTACT INFORMATION
For additional information on the progress of
Philippines benchmarks for early grade reading:
Joseph DeStefano, RTI International
jdestefano@rti.org

10
Annex A: List of Workshop Participants
DepEd Central Office Participants
1. Ms. Anne Choi
2. Dr. Marilette R. Almayda
3. Mr. Efren Dela Cruz
4. Dr. Rosalina J. Villaneza
5. Ms. Jocelyn S. Tuguinayo
Exec. Assistant (K to 3), Usec. for Programs and Projects
Director III, Bureau of Elementary Education (BEE)
Education Program Supervisor 2 (EPS 2), National Education
Testing and Research Center (NETRC)
Focal Person, MTB-MLE Program, BEE
Senior Education Program Specialist, BEE

Region I Participants (EGRA Ilocano)

6. Dr. Vivian Pagatpatan
7. Dr. Dinah Bonao
8. Dr. Alma Ruby C. Torio
9. Elsa M. Calado
10. Ms. Pearl P. Quinto
Chief, Elementary Education
Regional EGRA Coordinator DepEd-Region I
Schools Division Superintendent, Pangasinan
Education Regional Supervisor
EGRA Assessor/Principal

Region VI Participants (EGRA Hiligaynon)

11. Dr. Novelyn M. Vilchez
12. Dr. Dominica T. Parcia
13. Ms. Janalyn B. Navarro
14. Mr. Nerio Benito E. Eseo
15. Ms. Dymphna Leizel G. Jocson
Chief, Curriculum Learning Management Division (CLMD)
EPS, Bureau Elementary Education / CLMD
EPS I, Bacolod City Region VI
EGRA Regional Coordinator, Region VI
EGRA Assessor, DepEd-Region VI

Region VII Participants (EGRA Sinugbuanong Binisaya)

16. Dr. Maria Jesusa Despojo
17. Dr. Luz C. Jandayan
18. Ms. Nena V. Minoza
19. Pamela Rodimeo
20. Dr. Wilfreda D. Bongalos
21. Ms. Leilani Cabrera
22. Ms. Jocelyn M. Conta
Regional EPS
Officer in Charge (OIC)-Chief, Curriculum & Learning
Management Division
EGRA Regional Coordinator, Region VII
Education Program Supervisor, Cebu Province
Schools Division Superintendent, Bohol Province
Ed. Program Supervisor, Negros Oriental Division
EGRA Assessor, DepEd-Region VII

ARMM Participants (EGRA Maguindanaon)

23. Ms. Hasim P. Pinayongan
24. Ms. Saada Tubing
25. Ms. Wilma Grace P. Rivero
26. Ms. Salamat T. Abedin
27. Ma. Cristina T. Delos Santos
28. Ms. Armela Bansil
29. Ms. Rowena Kamaarudin
EPS I, Maguindanao
EGRA Regional Coordinator, ARMM
Principal, Maguindanao
EPS I – DepEd ARMM
EPS I, DepEd ARMM
EGRA Assessor, DepEd-ARMM
EGRA Assessor, DepEd-ARMM

National Capital Region (EGRA English)

30. Ms. Arlene B. Maniquis Education Program Supervisor-Muntinlupa
31. Jeanette Job Coroza Regional Coordinator
32. Ms. Rosella M. Esteban Master Teacher II
33. Mrs. Nerissa R. Lomeda Principal

11
Region IV-A Calabarzon (EGRA Filipino)
34. Dr. Erick M. Jabijan
35. Ms. Agnes Rolle
36. Dr. Lualhati O. Cadavedo
37. Ms. Andrea M. Abrencillo
38. Ms. Lourdes M. Tan
39. Ms. Carina P. Jamilano
Basa Pilipinas
40. Mr. Marcial Salvatierra
41. Ms. Karen Cassidy
42. Ms. Nancy Clark-Chiarelli
43. Dr. Felicitas Pado
44. Ilya Son
USAID Philippines
45. Mr. Mirshariff C. Tillah
RTI International
46. Mr. Joseph DeStefano
47. Mr. Rufino Jamilano
48. Ms. Rosa Rapanan
49. Mr. Julie Mar M. Mendoza
Chief, CLMD, Region IV-A
EGRA Regional Coordinator
City Schools Superintendent/OIC – Imus City
Education Program Supervisor
Principal III, Guinyangan District, Division of Quezon
Principal I, Plaridel District, Division of Quezon
Chief of Party, Basa Pilipinas, Education Development Centre,
Inc. (EDC)
International Project Associate, EDC
International Technical Advisor, EDC
Senior Consultant/Basa Pilipinas
Deputy Chief of Party
Program Management Specialist, Office of Education
Senior Technical Advisor
In-Country Tasks Coordinator, PhilED Data Project
Accountant, Science, Technology, Research and Innovation
for Development (STRIDE) Program
Staff, STRIDE Program
12
Annex B: Example of Box-and-Whisker Plots and Accompanying Data
Tables (Cebuano)

Grade 1 Grade 2

50th 50th
# 25th percentile 75th 25th percentile 75th
Correct percentile (median) percentile Count percentile (median) percentile Count

Zero 0 0 6 189 0 3 13 78

1 21 26 29 57 20 28 38 36

2 27 32 36 59 25 35 45 70

3 35 39 45 40 36 40 51 67

4 43 51 57 25 47 54 64 84

5 57 61 67 22 55 65 75 80

13