DepEd CRLA 2025-26 Results: Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment Analysis & Key Findings
Explore the detailed analysis of DepEd CRLA 2025-26 results for Grades 1-3. Review reading proficiency levels, regional performance, Grade 1 literacy crisis, and MTB-MLE program effectiveness across Mother Tongue, Filipino, and English.
School Year 2025-26: Comprehensive Data Analysis Report
Data Source: Department of Education (DepEd), Philippines
Analysis Date: December 2025
Dataset Coverage: 6,121 Schools • 647,681 Learners • 5 Regions • 44 Divisions • 13 Languages of Instruction
Compliance Notice
This analysis complies with DepEd's Terms of Use and Fair Use Policy as stipulated in Executive Order No. 2, 2016:
- No ranking of schools or divisions
- Comparisons made against DepEd proficiency benchmarks only
- Data presented "as is" without modification
- No comparison of test scores across school years
1. Executive Summary
The Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) 2025-26 provides a critical snapshot of early literacy outcomes among Filipino learners in Grades 1 to 3. This analysis examines data from 6,121 schools covering 647,681 learners across 5 regions and 44 divisions, assessing reading proficiency in Mother Tongue, Filipino, and English.
1.1 Critical Headline Findings
As summarized in Table 1.1, the findings highlight the current state of reading proficiency:
| Metric | Value | Interpretation |
|---|
| Total Learners Assessed | 647,681 | Large-scale census assessment |
| National At Grade Level Rate | 15.7% (weighted) | Significant gap from 75% proficiency target |
| Schools Below 25% At Grade Level | 81.4% (4,983 schools) | Majority of schools require intervention |
| Schools in Critical Status (<10%) | 43.8% (2,682 schools) | Nearly half face severe literacy challenges |
| Learners in Emerging Levels | 40.4% | Over 260,000 learners need foundational support |
Table 1.1: Critical Headline Findings providing a national overview of the CRLA 2025-26 results
1.2 Official DepEd Statistics Context
As shown in Table 1.2, the findings in this report align with official DepEd policy statements:
| Official Statistic | Source | Context |
|---|
| "More than 50% of Grades 1-3 learners are not reading at grade level" | DO 010, s. 2025, Section 3 | Official policy rationale for 2025 Summer Programs |
| "More than 64,000 Grade 3 learners (3.4% of cohort) classified as Low Emerging in English" | DM 034, s. 2025, Section 76 | Literacy Remediation Program targeting data |
| "22 percentage point improvement in grade-level readers (BOSY to EOSY)" | DM 073, s. 2025 | National CRLA gains during SY 2024-2025 |
| "91% learning poverty rate" | DO 018, s. 2025 (citing World Bank 2022) | National context for literacy crisis |
Table 1.2: Official DepEd Statistics Context aligning analysis findings with national policy documents
1.3 The Literacy Challenge in Numbers
The data reveals a significant literacy challenge in early education (Table 1.1):
- Only 1 in 6 learners (15.7%) reads at grade level expectations
- 4 in 10 learners (40.4%) remain at Low Emerging or High Emerging levels
- Less than 1 in 5 schools (18.6%) meets the 25% At Grade Level threshold
- Grade 1 Mother Tongue proficiency stands at only 5.3% — a critical concern for foundational literacy
Figure 1: Literacy Challenge Summary Dashboard showing key metrics and the
scope of the reading proficiency challenge
2. National Learning Context
2.1 Learning Poverty in the Philippines
The World Bank (2022) reported that learning poverty in the Philippines is at 91%, meaning nine out of 10 Filipino children are unable to read and understand simple reading materials by the age of 10. This alarming statistic, cited in DepEd Order No. 018, s. 2025, provides critical context for interpreting CRLA results.
2.2 Legislative Response: The ARAL Program Act
In response to these challenges, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 12028, also known as the Academic Recovery and Accessible Learning (ARAL) Program Act of 2024. This landmark legislation:
- Establishes ARAL as the national umbrella program for learning recovery
- Mandates free and effective learning intervention programs
- Positions CRLA as a primary assessment tool for identifying learners needing support
- Provides dedicated funding for reading, mathematics, and science remediation
2.3 Medium of Instruction Policy Shift
Republic Act No. 12027 (signed 2025) discontinues the use of Mother Tongue as the medium of instruction from Kindergarten to Grade 3, reverting to Filipino and English as primary media of instruction. This policy shift has significant implications for future CRLA administration and language of assessment.
3. Assessment Framework & Policy Context
3.1 What is CRLA?
The Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) is a classroom-based assessment tool designed to profile learners' reading levels in the early grades (Grades 1-3). It is administered at the beginning of the school year (BOSY) to inform instructional planning and intervention programs.
Official Technical Definition
As defined in DepEd Order No. 020, s. 2025, Section 9.4:
"Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) refers to a 15-20 minute standard rapid assessment tool administered in Grades 1 to 3 to determine learners' reading profiles and inform instruction."
Policy Framework
CRLA operates within an extensive policy framework spanning foundational legislation to recent implementing guidelines (Table 3.1 and Table 3.2):
Foundational Policies
| Policy Document | Relevance to CRLA |
|---|
| Republic Act No. 10533 | Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013; mandates quality assessment practices |
| DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015 | Policy Guidelines on Classroom Assessment for K-12 |
| DepEd Order No. 55, s. 2016 | National Assessment of Student Learning policy |
| DepEd Order No. 010, s. 2024 | MATATAG Curriculum implementation; CRLA as one of the assessment tools (p. 12-14) |
| DepEd Order No. 006, s. 2025 | Streamlining of School Forms; CRLA Result listed as required school form |
Table 3.1: Foundational Policies governing the implementation of CRLA
2025 Legislative and Policy Updates
| Policy Document | Relevance to CRLA |
|---|
| Republic Act No. 12028 | ARAL Program Act; establishes CRLA as primary assessment for ARAL-Reading in Key Stage 1 |
| Republic Act No. 12027 | Discontinues Mother Tongue as MOI for K-3; affects CRLA language of assessment |
| DepEd Order No. 018, s. 2025 | ARAL Implementing Guidelines; positions CRLA within ARAL-Reading framework |
| DepEd Order No. 010, s. 2025 | 2025 Summer Programs Guidelines; uses CRLA data for program targeting |
| DepEd Order No. 020, s. 2025 | MOI Policy for K-3; defines CRLA officially and specifies new assessment languages |
| DepEd Memorandum No. 033, s. 2025 | Bawat Bata Makababasa Program; uses CRLA for baseline and endline assessment |
| DepEd Memorandum No. 034, s. 2025 | Literacy Remediation Program; uses CRLA Low Emerging classification for targeting |
| DepEd Memorandum No. 064, s. 2025 | ARAL-Reading Implementing Guidelines for Key Stages 1-3 |
Table 3.2: 2025 Legislative and Policy Updates directly impacting assessment and literacy programs
As stated in the FAQs on MATATAG Curriculum implementation:
Schools may utilize the following assessment tools to support learner development:
- Philippine Early Childhood Checklist (Phil ECD)
- Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI)
- Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA)
- Rapid Mathematics Assessment (RMA)
3.3 CRLA Reading Levels Defined
| Level | Description | Instructional Implication |
|---|
| Low Emerging | Learners are beginning to develop foundational reading skills | Requires intensive phonemic awareness and print concept instruction |
| High Emerging | Learners show emerging awareness of print concepts | Needs continued foundational skills with early decoding |
| Developing | Learners can read with some support and demonstrate basic comprehension | Ready for guided reading with scaffolded support |
| Transitioning | Learners are moving towards independent reading | Approaching grade-level expectations; needs practice opportunities |
| At Grade Level | Learners read independently at expected grade level standards | Ready for grade-appropriate materials and challenges |
Table 3.3: CRLA Reading Levels Defined showing the criteria and instructional implications for each level
3.4 Connection to MTB-MLE Program
CRLA aligns with the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) program mandated under RA 10533. The assessment:
- Tests reading in 13 mother tongue languages (in this dataset)
- Includes 19 mother tongues nationally per DepEd Order No. 55, s. 2016
- Assesses the linguistic bridge from Mother Tongue → Filipino → English
Important Note: With the enactment of RA 12027 in 2025, the MOI for K-3 will shift from Mother Tongue to Filipino and English starting SY 2025-2026. This will affect future CRLA language of assessment configurations.
4. CRLA Administration and Assessment Timeline
4.1 Who Administers CRLA?
Based on DepEd policy documents, the Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) is administered by the following:
Teachers: The CRLA is designed as a diagnostic tool that rapidly provides teachers with a basis for grouping learners based on their reading abilities to facilitate targeted support. It is administered to learners in Grades 1 to 3. Per DepEd Order No. 006, s. 2025 (Enclosure 2), CRLA is listed under "School Forms for Teacher Ancillary Tasks Based on Learning Area/Grade Level/Designation."
Remediation Teachers and Tutors: In the context of intervention initiatives like the Bawat Bata Makababasa Program (BBMP) and the Literacy Remediation Program (LRP), designated tutors and remediation teachers administer the CRLA. They use it to establish baseline data (BOSY) and to measure proficiency at the conclusion of tutorial sessions (Endline/EOSY).
Department of Education (DepEd): As an institution, DepEd administers the CRLA as a standardized reading assessment tool. The implementation is overseen by various governance levels, with the Bureau of Education Assessment (BEA), Bureau of Learning Delivery (BLD), and Policy and Planning Service (PPS) collaborating to manage learner records and assessment data.
4.2 Assessment Administration Timeline
Per DepEd Memorandum No. 064, s. 2025, Section 11:
"BOSY assessments shall be administered to all learners within two (2) weeks up to one (1) month from the beginning of the school year."
This timeline is critical for interpreting Grade 1 results, as the 5.3% At Grade Level rate reflects assessment conducted before significant instruction has occurred.
4.3 Assessment Phases
| Phase | Timing | Purpose |
|---|
| BOSY (Beginning of School Year) | Within 2 weeks to 1 month from school opening | Baseline profiling; identifies learners for ARAL intervention |
| MOSY (Middle of School Year) | Mid-year | Progress monitoring |
| EOSY (End of School Year) | March-April | Summative assessment; measures gains |
Table 4.1: Assessment Phases across the school year as defined in DepEd policy
4.4 Phased Assessment Implementation
From DM 064, s. 2025, Section 13:
"Assessment may be done in phases, beginning with learners who demonstrate reading difficulties, to allow remediation measures to start right away."
5. CRLA within the ARAL Program Framework
5.1 The ARAL Program Structure
CRLA is now positioned as a primary assessment tool within the ARAL Program, established by Republic Act No. 12028. The program structure is as follows:
ARAL Program (Umbrella - RA 12028)
├── ARAL-Reading (uses CRLA for Grades 1-3)
│ └── Key Stage 1: Grades 1-3 → CRLA Assessment
│ └── Key Stages 2-3: Grades 4-10 → Phil-IRI Assessment
├── ARAL-Mathematics (uses RMA for Grades 1-3)
├── ARAL-Science (starting SY 2026-2027)
└── ARAL-Summer Programs
├── Bawat Bata Makababasa Program (CRLA-based targeting)
├── Literacy Remediation Program (CRLA Low Emerging targeting)
└── 2025 Learning Camp
5.2 Assessment Boundaries: CRLA vs. Phil-IRI
| Assessment | Grade Coverage | Key Stage | Use Case |
|---|
| CRLA | Grades 1-3 | Key Stage 1 | ARAL-Reading; rapid profiling (15-20 min) |
| Phil-IRI | Grades 4-10 | Key Stages 2-3 | ARAL-Reading; detailed reading inventory |
Table 5.1: Assessment Boundaries comparing CRLA and Phil-IRI coverage and use cases
Source: DepEd Memorandum No. 064, s. 2025, Section 12
5.3 CRLA-Based Placement in Summer Programs
From DepEd Memorandum No. 036, s. 2025, CRLA results determine placement in the 2025 Learning Camp:
| CRLA Category | Camp Placement | Description |
|---|
| Emerging, Developing | Intervention Camp | Mandatory; for struggling learners |
| Transitioning | Consolidation Camp | Further practice and application |
| At Grade Level | Enhancement Camp | Enrichment for advanced learners |
Table 5.2: CRLA-Based Placement in Summer Programs as defined in DM 036, s. 2025
5.4 CRLA Use in Targeted Programs
Bawat Bata Makababasa Program (DM 033, s. 2025):
"The EoSY 2024-2025 CRLA results of Grades 1-3 learners... shall be used as baseline data for the pilot run. The CRLA will also be used to assess the learners at the end of the 20-day tutorial program."
Literacy Remediation Program (DM 034, s. 2025):
"The LRP aims to provide intensive and structured literacy intervention to Grade 3 learners classified as Low Emerging Readers in English based on the End of School Year (EoSY) 2024–2025 Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA)."
6. Language of Assessment Policy Changes
6.1 Impact of RA 12027 on CRLA
Republic Act No. 12027 (signed 2025) fundamentally changes the medium of instruction for K-3, which directly affects CRLA administration. The law:
- Discontinues Mother Tongue as the primary MOI for K-3
- Reverts to Filipino and English as primary media of instruction
- Allows regional languages as auxiliary media of instruction
6.2 New CRLA Language Framework
Per DepEd Order No. 020, s. 2025, Annex D, the language of CRLA assessment will be configured as shown in Table 6.1 starting SY 2025-2026:
| Grade Level | Classroom Scenario | CRLA Language |
|---|
| Grade 1 | Linguistically diverse (Scenarios A & B) | Filipino |
| Grade 1 | Monolingual/IP classes (Scenarios C & D) | L1 (if available) |
| Grade 2 | Linguistically diverse (Scenarios A & B) | Filipino |
| Grade 2 | Monolingual/IP classes (Scenarios C & D) | L1 (if available), Filipino |
| Grade 3 | All scenarios | Filipino, English |
Table 6.1: New CRLA Language Framework starting SY 2025-2026
6.3 Implications for This Analysis
The data in this report reflects SY 2025-26 BOSY assessment, which was administered under the transitional period following RA 12027 implementation. The 13 mother tongue languages assessed in this dataset represent the legacy MTB-MLE assessment framework. Future CRLA administrations will primarily use Filipino as the language of assessment for Grades 1-2, with English added at Grade 3.
7. Complementary Assessments
7.1 Multi-Factored Assessment Tool (MFAT)
Per DepEd Memorandum No. 064, s. 2025, Section 14:
"Teachers shall administer the Multi-Factored Assessment Tool (MFAT) at the beginning of the school year to determine developmental conditions among learners, if any. Learners who manifest developmental or learning challenges shall be referred to the school heads for necessary interventions."
CRLA and MFAT work together—learners with developmental challenges may need different interventions beyond reading remediation.
7.2 Complete Assessment Ecosystem for Key Stage 1
| Assessment Tool | Purpose | Timing | Target Learners |
|---|
| CRLA | Reading proficiency profiling | BOSY/MOSY/EOSY | All Grades 1-3 learners |
| RMA | Mathematics proficiency | BOSY/MOSY/EOSY | All Grades 1-3 learners |
| Phil-ECD Checklist | Developmental screening | BOSY/EOSY | Kindergarten learners |
| MFAT | Developmental conditions | BOSY | Learners showing challenges |
Table 7.1: Complete Assessment Ecosystem for Key Stage 1 learners
8. Data Overview
8.1 Dataset Summary
| Parameter | Value |
|---|
| Total Schools | 6,121 |
| Total Learners Tested | 647,681 |
| Regions Covered | 5 (CAR, Region I, III, VIII, IX) |
| Divisions Covered | 44 |
| Languages of Instruction | 13 |
| Grade Levels | Grades 1, 2, 3 |
| Languages Assessed | Mother Tongue, Filipino, English |
Table 8.1: Dataset Summary of the CRLA 2025-26 assessment covering 5 regions
8.2 Assessment Structure by Grade
| Grade | Languages Assessed | Total Learners |
|---|
| Grade 1 | Mother Tongue | 199,903 |
| Grade 2 | Mother Tongue, Filipino | 441,561 (combined) |
| Grade 3 | Mother Tongue, Filipino, English | 687,919 (combined) |
Table 8.2: Assessment Structure by Grade and target languages
9. National Reading Level Distribution
9.1 Weighted National Averages
Based on enrollment-weighted calculations across all 647,681 learners (Table 9.1):
| Reading Level | Weighted Average | Interpretation |
|---|
| Low Emerging | 30.3% | ~196,000 learners at foundational stage |
| High Emerging | 10.1% | ~65,000 learners showing emerging awareness |
| Developing | 13.0% | ~84,000 learners reading with support |
| Transitioning | 30.9% | ~200,000 learners approaching grade level |
| At Grade Level | 15.7% | ~102,000 learners meeting expectations |
Table 9.1: Weighted National Averages Across All Reading Levels
Figure 2: National Average Reading Level Distribution across 6,121 schools
and 647,681 learners
9.2 Statistical Summary (School-Level)
| Reading Level | Mean % | Median % | Std Dev | Min | Max |
|---|
| Low Emerging | 30.58 | 29.03 | 16.85 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| High Emerging | 9.92 | 7.79 | 9.81 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| Developing | 13.75 | 12.28 | 10.45 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| Transitioning | 31.32 | 30.25 | 15.40 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| At Grade Level | 14.42 | 11.76 | 13.26 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
Table 9.2: Statistical Summary (School-Level) showing distribution metrics for each reading level
Figure 3: National Reading Level Distribution weighted by enrollment showing
the proportion of learners at each level
9.3 Key Insight: The "Missing Middle"
The data reveals a bimodal distribution with learners clustered at:
- Low Emerging + High Emerging: 40.4% (struggling readers)
- Transitioning + At Grade Level: 46.6% (progressing readers)
- Developing: Only 13.0% (the "bridge" category)
This suggests many learners may be "skipping" the Developing stage, or the Developing category criteria may need calibration.
Figure 4: Distribution of Schools by At Grade Level Performance showing the
rightward skew with most schools below 25%
Figure 5: Scatter plot showing the inverse relationship between Emerging
(Low + High) and Proficient (Transitioning + At Grade Level) rates
10. Regional Performance Analysis
10.1 Regional Summary Statistics
| Region | Schools | Learners | Low Emerging % | High Emerging % | Developing % | Transitioning % | At Grade Level % |
|---|
| CAR | 772 | 45,478 | 25.73 | 9.72 | 13.75 | 37.00 | 13.81 |
| Region I | 1,131 | 112,796 | 30.62 | 10.14 | 13.19 | 32.25 | 13.80 |
| Region III | 1,384 | 272,607 | 29.94 | 10.08 | 13.00 | 29.26 | 17.71 |
| Region VIII | 2,024 | 146,709 | 31.52 | 10.71 | 14.65 | 30.52 | 12.61 |
| Region IX | 810 | 70,091 | 33.91 | 7.58 | 13.57 | 30.15 | 14.79 |
Table 10.1: Regional Summary Statistics showing literacy performance across the 5 assessed regions
Figure 6: Regional comparison of At Grade Level percentages showing Region
III leading and Region VIII trailing
10.2 Regional Performance Gap Analysis
| Metric | Value |
|---|
| Highest Performing Region | Region III (17.71% At Grade Level) |
| Lowest Performing Region | Region VIII (12.61% At Grade Level) |
| Regional Gap | 5.1 percentage points |
Table 10.2: Regional Performance Gap Analysis comparing the highest and lowest performing regions
Figure 7: Heatmap showing all five reading levels across all five regions
revealing distinct regional patterns
10.3 Regional Interpretations
Region III (Central Luzon) - Best Performer:
- Largest enrollment (272,607 learners) provides statistical robustness
- Lowest proportion of Low Emerging learners (29.94%)
- May benefit from proximity to NCR, better infrastructure, higher teacher quality ratios
- Contains high-performing divisions like Bulacan (19.74%) and Tarlac (20.62%)
Region VIII (Eastern Visayas) - Needs Attention:
- Largest number of schools (2,024) but lowest At Grade Level rate
- Highest proportion of schools using Waray as language of instruction
- Contains Northern Samar (8.41% At Grade Level) — the lowest among large divisions
- Post-Typhoon Yolanda recovery may still be affecting educational infrastructure
CAR (Cordillera Administrative Region):
- Highest Transitioning rate (37.00%) suggests learners are progressing
- Relatively lower Low Emerging rate (25.73%) — best in dataset
- Smaller, possibly more homogeneous population may facilitate targeted interventions
Figure 8: Schools and test takers by region showing the scale of assessment
in each region
Figure 9: Radar chart comparing regional literacy profiles across all five
reading levels
11. Grade-Level Progression Analysis
11.1 At Grade Level Performance by Grade and Language
| Grade/Language | Schools | Total Learners | Learners at Grade Level | % At Grade Level |
|---|
| Grade 1 - Mother Tongue | 6,090 | 199,903 | 10,625 | 5.3% |
| Grade 2 - Mother Tongue | 6,060 | 221,487 | 38,349 | 17.3% |
| Grade 2 - Filipino | 6,096 | 220,074 | 37,818 | 17.2% |
| Grade 3 - Mother Tongue | 5,920 | 227,945 | 56,175 | 24.6% |
| Grade 3 - Filipino | 6,056 | 232,270 | 52,709 | 22.7% |
| Grade 3 - English | 5,918 | 227,704 | 53,122 | 23.3% |
Table 11.1: At Grade Level Performance by Grade and Language showing progression
Figure 10: Grade and Language comparison showing clear progression from
Grade 1 (5.3%) to Grade 3 (24.6%)
11.2 The Grade 1 Crisis
Only 5.3% of Grade 1 learners read at grade level in Mother Tongue.
This finding represents the most critical concern in the dataset:
- 189,278 out of 199,903 Grade 1 learners are NOT at grade level
- The median school has 0% of Grade 1 learners at grade level
- This suggests systemic challenges in early literacy instruction and/or assessment timing
Possible Contributing Factors:
- Assessment administered at BOSY before instruction has occurred — Per DM 064, s. 2025, BOSY assessments are administered within 2 weeks to 1 month from school opening
- Kindergarten-to-Grade 1 transition gaps
- Variability in pre-school exposure
- Limited reading readiness at assessment time
11.3 Progression Trajectory
As summarized in Table 11.1 and Figure 9, the data shows a clear 19-percentage-point improvement from Grade 1 to Grade 3:
Grade 1 MT: 5.3% →
Grade 2 MT: 17.3% (+12.0 pp) →
Grade 3 MT: 24.6% (+7.3 pp) →
Grade 3 English: 23.3%
Figure 11: Reading level progression across grades showing improvement from
Grade 1 to Grade 3
This progression suggests:
- The MTB-MLE bridging approach shows cumulative gains
- Mother Tongue foundation builds toward second and third language proficiency
- Grade 3 English (23.3%) approaches Grade 3 MT (24.6%), indicating successful language transfer
11.4 Language Comparison at Grade 3
At Grade 3, all three languages show similar At Grade Level rates:
| Language | At Grade Level % |
|---|
| Mother Tongue | 24.6% |
| English | 23.3% |
| Filipino | 22.7% |
Table 11.2: Language Comparison at Grade 3 showing parity across assessment languages
The near-parity suggests the MTB-MLE approach may be facilitating equitable language development across the three languages by Grade 3.
Figure 12: Stacked bar chart showing how reading level composition shifts
positively across grades
12. Language of Instruction Analysis
12.1 Performance by Mother Tongue Language
| Language | Schools | Learners | At Grade Level % |
|---|
| Other | 4 | 116 | 37.61% |
| Southern Sorsoganon | 2 | 97 | 28.52% |
| Kapampangan | 83 | 14,335 | 19.42% |
| Bahasa Sug | 1 | 123 | 19.51% |
| Yakan | 1 | 68 | 16.18% |
| Tagalog | 2,135 | 336,387 | 16.10% |
| Pangasinan | 157 | 25,511 | 13.92% |
| Ilocano | 940 | 57,298 | 13.78% |
| Sinugbuanong Binisaya | 1,352 | 112,527 | 14.52% |
| Surigaonon | 3 | 293 | 12.95% |
| Chavacano | 1 | 241 | 7.05% |
| Waray | 1,435 | 99,875 | 11.98% |
| Sambal | 7 | 810 | 4.56% |
Table 12.1: Performance by Mother Tongue Language for the 13 languages assessed
Figure 13: Distribution of schools by language of instruction showing
Tagalog dominance
12.2 Key Language Findings
Top Performers (Among Major Languages):
- Kapampangan (19.42%) - 14,335 learners
- Tagalog (16.10%) - 336,387 learners (largest population)
- Sinugbuanong Binisaya (14.52%) - 112,527 learners
Areas of Concern:
- Waray (11.98%) - Third largest population (99,875) but underperforming
- Sambal (4.56%) - Very small sample but concerning rate
Figure 14: Performance by language of instruction showing significant
variation across languages
12.3 Tagalog as a Dominant Language
With 336,387 learners (52% of total), Tagalog instruction shows:
- Slightly above-average performance (16.10% vs 14.4% national)
- Broad implementation across Region III
- Potential benefits from greater availability of learning materials
12.4 Waray as an Area of Focus
Waray-medium instruction shows:
- 99,875 learners (15.4% of total population)
- Below-average At Grade Level rate (11.98%)
- Concentrated in Region VIII (Eastern Visayas)
- May require additional learning resource development
13. School Performance Categories
13.1 Distribution by Performance Category
| Category | Criteria | Schools | Percentage | Cumulative |
|---|
| Critical | <10% At Grade Level | 2,682 | 43.8% | 43.8% |
| Emerging | 10-24% At Grade Level | 2,301 | 37.6% | 81.4% |
| Developing | 25-49% At Grade Level | 1,011 | 16.5% | 97.9% |
| Proficient | 50-74% At Grade Level | 108 | 1.8% | 99.7% |
| Highly Proficient | ≥75% At Grade Level | 19 | 0.3% | 100.0% |
Table 13.1: Distribution by Performance Category showing the magnitude of the literacy challenge
Figure 15: Schools by performance category showing 81.4% below the 25%
developing threshold
13.2 Critical Finding: 81.4% Below Target
4,983 schools (81.4%) do not meet the 25% At Grade Level target.
This means:
- Only 1,138 schools have at least 1 in 4 learners reading at grade level
- The majority of schools require intervention under the ARAL Program (RA 12028)
- Resources must be allocated to support struggling schools, not just struggling learners
13.3 The "Critical" Schools Challenge
The 2,682 schools in Critical status (<10% At Grade Level) represent:
- Over 43% of all schools assessed
- A significant portion of the learning recovery challenge
- Priority targets for ARAL-Reading intervention:
- Intensive teacher training
- Learning resource provision
- Monitoring and technical assistance
13.4 Highly Proficient Schools: Learning from Success
Only 19 schools (0.3%) achieve ≥75% At Grade Level. These schools could serve as:
- Models for best practices
- Sites for learning visits
- Sources of successful instructional strategies
14. School Size and Performance
14.1 Performance by School Size Category
| Size Category | Schools | Learners | At Grade Level % |
|---|
| Very Small (≤50) | 2,623 | 75,199 | 13.62% |
| Small (51-100) | 1,622 | 115,334 | 13.92% |
| Medium (101-200) | 1,102 | 156,605 | 15.31% |
| Large (201-500) | 621 | 184,604 | 16.68% |
| Very Large (>500) | 153 | 115,939 | 17.91% |
Table 14.1: Performance by School Size Category showing larger schools performing better on average
Figure 16: Performance by school size showing positive correlation between
size and At Grade Level rates
14.2 The Size-Performance Relationship
As shown in Table 14.1 and Figure 13, a clear positive correlation exists between school size and At Grade Level rates:
- Very Small schools (≤50 learners): 13.62%
- Very Large schools (>500 learners): 17.91%
- Difference: 4.29 percentage points
14.3 Interpreting the Size Effect
Larger schools may perform better due to:
- Resource Concentration: More teachers, learning materials, and facilities
- Specialization: Dedicated reading teachers or intervention specialists
- Economies of Scale: Better infrastructure per learner
- Peer Effects: More opportunities for collaborative learning
- Location: Larger schools often in urban/semi-urban areas with better support
Figure 17: School size density plot showing most schools are small with peak
around 50-100 learners
14.4 Implications for Small Schools
The 2,623 very small schools (43% of all schools) may need:
- Multi-grade teaching support
- Mobile reading specialists
- Community-based reading programs
- Digital learning resources
15. Division-Level Insights
15.1 Top 15 Divisions by Enrollment
| Division | Schools | Learners | At Grade Level % |
|---|
| Bulacan | 176 | 56,000 | 19.74% |
| Pampanga | 219 | 41,231 | 18.67% |
| Leyte | 548 | 34,983 | 16.23% |
| Pangasinan I | 261 | 32,688 | 14.56% |
| San Jose Del Monte City | 38 | 31,772 | 15.86% |
| Tarlac | 221 | 30,677 | 20.62% |
| Nueva Ecija | 254 | 30,639 | 18.99% |
| Northern Samar | 343 | 26,931 | 8.41% |
| Zamboanga del Norte | 290 | 22,763 | 12.57% |
| Zamboanga del Sur | 292 | 21,797 | 15.16% |
| Tarlac City | 87 | 18,649 | 15.50% |
| Zambales | 117 | 17,779 | 12.48% |
| Pangasinan II | 186 | 17,726 | 16.18% |
| La Union | 175 | 15,980 | 13.04% |
| Samar (Western) | 335 | 15,184 | 11.26% |
Table 15.1: Top 15 Divisions by Enrollment showing performance variations across large divisions
Figure 18: Division performance for largest divisions showing wide variation
within and across regions
15.2 Division Highlights
Top Performers:
- Tarlac (20.62%) — Highest among large divisions
- Bulacan (19.74%) — Largest division with strong performance
- Nueva Ecija (18.99%) — Consistent with Region III leadership
Areas Requiring Intensive Support:
- Northern Samar (8.41%) — Lowest among large divisions; requires urgent attention
- Samar (Western) (11.26%) — Below regional average
- Zambales (12.48%) — Lower than Region III peers
16. Correlation Analysis
16.1 Reading Level Correlations
| Low Emerg | High Emerg | Developing | Transitioning | At Grade |
|---|
| Low Emerg | 1.000 | -0.134 | -0.202 | -0.527 | -0.399 |
| High Emerg | -0.134 | 1.000 | 0.055 | -0.291 | -0.274 |
| Developing | -0.202 | 0.055 | 1.000 | -0.263 | -0.267 |
| Transitioning | -0.527 | -0.291 | -0.263 | 1.000 | -0.069 |
| At Grade | -0.399 | -0.274 | -0.267 | -0.069 | 1.000 |
Table 16.1: Reading Level Correlations showing the relationship between different proficiency stages
Figure 19: Correlation matrix showing relationships between reading levels
16.2 Key Correlation Insights
Strongest Negative Correlations:
- Low Emerging ↔ Transitioning (r = -0.527): Schools with high Low Emerging rates have significantly fewer Transitioning learners
- Low Emerging ↔ At Grade Level (r = -0.399): High foundational struggles predict lower grade-level achievement
Near-Zero Correlation:
- Transitioning ↔ At Grade Level (r = -0.069): These levels appear relatively independent; high Transitioning does not necessarily predict high At Grade Level
Figure 20: Grade 1 Mother Tongue vs Grade 3 English correlation showing
positive relationship
16.3 Practical Interpretation
The correlation patterns (Table 16.1 and Figure 16) suggest:
- Reducing Low Emerging is critical: This level shows the strongest negative relationships with higher proficiency levels
- Transitioning is not sufficient: High Transitioning rates don't automatically translate to At Grade Level success
- The jump from Transitioning to At Grade Level may require specific interventions beyond general reading instruction
17. Key Findings & Policy Implications
17.1 Finding 1: The Grade 1 Foundation Crisis
Only 5.3% of Grade 1 learners read at grade level in Mother Tongue.
Policy Implications:
- Strengthen Kindergarten-to-Grade 1 transition programs
- Enhance early literacy instruction in Grade 1
- Consider CRLA timing — BOSY assessment may underestimate learning (per DM 064, s. 2025, assessment occurs within 2 weeks to 1 month of school opening)
- Increase focus on phonemic awareness and decoding skills
Recommended Actions:
- Review Grade 1 CRLA benchmarks and timing
- Strengthen Kindergarten literacy outcomes
- Provide intensive Grade 1 reading intervention programs through ARAL-Reading (RA 12028)
17.2 Finding 2: The 81.4% Challenge
81.4% of schools do not meet the 25% At Grade Level target.
Policy Implications:
- Universal intervention is needed, not targeted programs
- Resource allocation must scale to the magnitude of the challenge
- School-level support is as critical as learner-level intervention
- The ARAL Program (RA 12028) provides the legislative framework for this universal approach
Recommended Actions:
- Expand ARAL-Reading program coverage per DepEd Order No. 018, s. 2025
- Prioritize teacher training in early literacy instruction
- Develop and distribute more reading materials in mother tongues and Filipino
17.3 Finding 3: Regional Disparities Require Targeted Support
Region VIII trails Region III by 5.1 percentage points.
Policy Implications:
- Region VIII (Eastern Visayas) requires additional resources
- Waray language materials may need enhancement
- Post-disaster recovery (Typhoon Yolanda) impacts may persist
Recommended Actions:
- Conduct Region VIII-specific literacy program review
- Increase Waray reading material development
- Deploy reading specialists to underperforming divisions
- Utilize School Innovation and Improvement Fund (SIIF) per DM 073, s. 2025 for under-resourced schools
17.4 Finding 4: Language Materials Matter
Kapampangan (19.42%) outperforms Waray (11.98%) by 7.4 percentage points.
Policy Implications:
- Availability and quality of mother tongue materials affects outcomes
- Smaller language communities may need targeted support
- Mother tongue curriculum development is uneven
Note: With the implementation of RA 12027, future focus will shift to Filipino-medium materials for Grades 1-2.
Recommended Actions:
- Audit learning resource availability by language
- Prioritize development for underperforming languages
- Train teachers in local orthographies and materials development
17.5 Finding 5: Small Schools Need Special Attention
Very Small schools (≤50 learners) underperform by 4.3 percentage points.
Policy Implications:
- School consolidation policies must consider literacy outcomes
- Small schools require alternative support mechanisms
- Multi-grade teaching challenges affect reading instruction
Recommended Actions:
- Deploy mobile reading specialists to small schools
- Develop multi-grade reading instruction guides
- Explore technology-enabled learning support
17.6 Finding 6: The MTB-MLE Bridge Works
Grade 3 English (23.3%) approaches Grade 3 MT (24.6%).
Policy Implications:
- Mother tongue foundation supports second/third language acquisition
- The linguistic bridge model shows promise
- Continued attention to language transition is warranted
Note on Policy Transition: With RA 12027 discontinuing Mother Tongue as MOI for K-3, the bridging approach will shift to use Filipino as the primary medium with regional languages as auxiliary support.
Recommended Actions:
- Document successful bridging practices
- Strengthen Grade 2 Filipino instruction as the transition point
- Monitor language transition under the new MOI policy (DO 020, s. 2025)
18. Methodology & Technical Notes
18.1 Data Collection
Per DepEd's Technical Notes on Learning Outcomes Data and DM 064, s. 2025:
- CRLA is administered as a census assessment (all schools, all learners in target grades)
- Data collection follows the Local Assessment process with school-level administration
- Results are aggregated at school level before reporting
- BOSY assessments administered within 2 weeks to 1 month from school opening
18.2 Scoring Framework
CRLA uses criterion-referenced scoring with five proficiency levels:
- Low Emerging
- High Emerging
- Developing
- Transitioning
- At Grade Level
The minimum proficiency target is At Grade Level (comparable to 75% in ELLNA and NAT frameworks).
18.3 Data Limitations
As noted in DepEd's Technical Notes:
- No cross-year comparison: Test difficulty varies year-to-year; trend analysis is not valid
- Context matters: Schools operate in different contexts; direct comparisons should be avoided
- Benchmark comparison only: Results should be compared against benchmarks (national, regional, division averages), not against each other
- BOSY timing: Grade 1 results reflect assessment before significant instruction has occurred
18.4 Analysis Compliance
This analysis adheres to DepEd's Terms of Use:
- ✅ No ranking of schools
- ✅ No ranking of divisions
- ✅ Comparisons against benchmarks only
- ✅ Data presented "as is"
- ✅ No cross-year comparisons
- ✅ Attribution to DepEd as data source
19. References
19.1 Legislative References
-
Republic of the Philippines. (2013). Republic Act No. 10533: Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013.
-
Republic of the Philippines. (2024). Republic Act No. 12028: Academic Recovery and Accessible Learning (ARAL) Program Act.
-
Republic of the Philippines. (2025). Republic Act No. 12027: An Act Discontinuing the Use of Mother Tongue as Medium of Instruction from Kindergarten to Grade 3.
-
Office of the President. (2016). Executive Order No. 2: Operationalizing the People's Constitutional Right to Information.
19.2 DepEd Orders
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2015). DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015: Policy Guidelines on Classroom Assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2016). DepEd Order No. 55, s. 2016: Policy Guidelines on the National Assessment of Student Learning for the K to 12 Basic Education Program.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2018). DepEd Order No. 14, s. 2018: Policy Guidelines on the Administration of the Revised Philippine Informal Reading Inventory.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2018). DepEd Order No. 29, s. 2018: Policy on the Implementation of the Multi-Factored Assessment Tool (MFAT).
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2024). DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2024: Implementing Guidelines on the School Calendar and Activities for School Year 2024-2025.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2024). DepEd Order No. 010, s. 2024: Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the MATATAG Curriculum.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2025). DepEd Order No. 006, s. 2025: Guidelines on the Streamlining of School Forms and Reports Accomplished by Teachers.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2025). DepEd Order No. 010, s. 2025: Guidelines for the Implementation of the 2025 Department of Education Summer Programs.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2025). DepEd Order No. 012, s. 2025: Multi-Year Implementing Guidelines on the School Calendar and Activities.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2025). DepEd Order No. 018, s. 2025: Implementing Guidelines of the Academic Recovery and Accessible Learning (ARAL) Program.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2025). DepEd Order No. 020, s. 2025: Policy on the Medium of Instruction for Kindergarten to Grade 3 Effective School Year 2025-2026.
19.3 DepEd Memoranda
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2025). DepEd Memorandum No. 033, s. 2025: Supplemental Guidelines for the Implementation of the Bawat Bata Makababasa Program.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2025). DepEd Memorandum No. 034, s. 2025: Supplemental Guidelines on the Implementation of the Literacy Remediation Program.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2025). DepEd Memorandum No. 036, s. 2025: Supplemental Guidelines for the Implementation of the 2025 Learning Camp.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2025). DepEd Memorandum No. 056, s. 2025: Supplemental Guidelines on the Implementation of the ARAL School Readiness and Responsiveness Audit.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2025). DepEd Memorandum No. 064, s. 2025: Implementing Guidelines for the Academic Recovery and Accessible Learning Program in Reading for Key Stages 1 to 3.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2025). DepEd Memorandum No. 073, s. 2025: Allocation and Release of the School Innovation and Improvement Fund.
19.4 Technical Documents and Data Sources
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2025). Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) School-Level Data, SY 2025-26.
-
Department of Education, Bureau of Education Assessment. (2025). Technical Notes on Learning Outcomes Data - ELLNA and NATG6.
-
Department of Education, Philippines. (2024). FAQs on the MATATAG Curriculum.
-
World Bank. (2022). Learning Poverty Data: Philippines. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Appendix A: List of Visualizations
Table A.1: List of Visualizations included in this report
Appendix B: CRLA within the ARAL Framework - Quick Reference
Assessment Tool Boundaries
| Key Stage | Grades | Reading Assessment | Mathematics Assessment |
|---|
| Key Stage 1 | K-3 | CRLA | RMA |
| Key Stage 2 | 4-6 | Phil-IRI | RMA (Grades 4-6) |
| Key Stage 3 | 7-10 | Phil-IRI | Grade-appropriate tools |
Table B.1: Assessment Tool Boundaries within the ARAL Framework
CRLA Proficiency to ARAL Intervention Mapping
| CRLA Level | ARAL Priority | Intervention Type |
|---|
| Low Emerging | Highest Priority | Intensive remediation; mandatory ARAL-Reading |
| High Emerging | High Priority | Intensive remediation; mandatory ARAL-Reading |
| Developing | Moderate Priority | Targeted support; recommended ARAL-Reading |
| Transitioning | Lower Priority | Consolidation activities |
| At Grade Level | Enrichment | Enhancement activities |
Table B.2: CRLA Proficiency to ARAL Intervention Mapping
Key Policy Documents for CRLA Implementation
| Document | Primary Focus | CRLA Relevance |
|---|
| RA 12028 | ARAL Program establishment | Legal basis for CRLA as intervention targeting tool |
| DO 018, s. 2025 | ARAL implementation | Operational guidelines for CRLA-based ARAL-Reading |
| DM 064, s. 2025 | ARAL-Reading Key Stages 1-3 | Detailed CRLA administration protocols |
| DO 020, s. 2025 | MOI for K-3 | New CRLA language of assessment framework |
Table B.3: Key Policy Documents for CRLA Implementation