DepEd ELLNA 2023-2024 Results: Comprehensive Analysis & Key Findings
Explore the detailed analysis of DepEd ELLNA 2023-2024 results. Review Grade 3 proficiency stats, regional performance, and the critical numeracy gap findings.
School Year 2023-2024: Comprehensive Data Analysis Report
Data Source: Department of Education (DepEd), Philippines
Analysis Date: December 2025
Dataset Coverage: 5,752 Schools • 218,296 Test-Takers • 5 Regions • 44 Divisions
1. Executive Summary
This comprehensive analysis examines the Early Language, Literacy and Numeracy Assessment (ELLNA) results for School Year 2023-2024, covering 5,752 public elementary schools across 5 regions of the Philippines with a total of 218,296 Grade 3 test-takers. The ELLNA is a key stage assessment administered by the Bureau of Education Assessment (BEA) to determine if learners are meeting the learning standards in early language, literacy, and numeracy, pursuant to DepEd Order No. 55, s. 2016.
Critical Context: It is vital to note that per DepEd Order No. 027, s. 2022, this specific administration was designated as the "2024 New National Assessment Baseline." Following the COVID-19 pandemic and the Rapid Assessments of 2021-2022, these results establish the new benchmark against which the success of the MATATAG Curriculum and the newly legislated ARAL Program (Republic Act No. 12028) will be measured.
1.1 Key Findings at a Glance
-
National Overall MPS: 65.3% (Nearly Proficient level) — below the 75% proficiency threshold set by DepEd
-
Subject Performance: Filipino leads at 68.8%, followed by English at 66.4%, Mother Tongue at 64.7%, and Numeracy at 56.4%
-
Proficiency Gap: Only 32.2% of schools achieved Proficient or higher (≥75% MPS); 20.1% remain at Low Proficient or below
-
Numeracy Crisis: 12.5 percentage point gap between Filipino and Numeracy represents the most critical learning challenge. This aligns with the prioritization of ARAL-Mathematics under DepEd Order No. 018, s. 2025.
-
Regional Variation: Region VIII leads at 71.1% overall MPS; Region IX trails at 56.1%. This 15-point disparity directly triggered the selection of Region IX as the pilot area for the Bawat Bata Makababasa Program (BBMP) under DepEd Memorandum No. 033, s. 2025.
2. Introduction and Background
2.1 What is ELLNA?
The Early Language, Literacy and Numeracy Assessment (ELLNA) is a national standardized assessment administered by the Department of Education's Bureau of Education Assessment (BEA) to Grade 3 learners in public elementary schools. As a key stage assessment under the K to 12 Basic Education Program, ELLNA serves as the primary diagnostic tool for measuring foundational learning outcomes at the end of Key Stage 1.
2.2 Purpose and Objectives
According to DepEd Order No. 55, s. 2016, ELLNA results are utilized to:
- Determine if learners are meeting Grade 3 learning standards
- Analyze patterns in language development to develop appropriate intervention programs
- Formulate evidence-based policies for Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE)
- Improve MTB-MLE instruction and identify teacher training needs
- Initiate research on instructional practices that impact student learning outcomes
2.3 Assessment Design
ELLNA uses a multiple-choice format and measures two main domains:
Language and Literacy:
- Mechanical Component: Alphabet knowledge, phonics and word reading, spelling
- Meaning Component: Book and print knowledge, vocabulary, grammar, reading comprehension, listening comprehension, study skills
Numeracy:
- Counting, estimating, calculating, measuring, and problem-solving
The assessment is administered in English, Filipino, and 19 designated Mother Tongue languages including Ilokano, Cebuano, Waray, Hiligaynon, Bikol, Kapampangan, Pangasinan, and others.
2.4 Legislative Context and Future Transitions
The ELLNA was designed to support the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) program under Republic Act No. 10533 (Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013). However, Republic Act No. 12027, signed in October 2024, discontinued the use of Mother Tongue as the medium of instruction from Kindergarten to Grade 3, reverting to Filipino and English.
This policy change has significant implications for future ELLNA administrations. Per DepEd Memorandum No. 087, s. 2025, starting SY 2025-2026, ELLNA will be administered to Grade 4 learners with testing languages limited to English and Filipino only. Consequently, the dataset analyzed in this report represents the final comprehensive record of the original MTB-MLE assessment framework before the implementation of RA 12027.
2.5 The 2024 Baseline Context
This assessment is distinct from previous years. Pursuant to DepEd Order No. 027, s. 2022, the 2023-2024 ELLNA serves as the New National Assessment Baseline. This baseline is critical for refining quality standards and identifying complementary quality standards beyond national assessments to ensure a holistic evaluation of education quality moving forward into the MATATAG curriculum era.
3. Methodology
3.1 Data Source and Scope
As shown in Table 3.1, the analysis uses official dataset published by DepEd:
| Metric | Value |
|---|
| Total Schools | 5,752 |
| Total Test-Takers | 218,296 |
| Regions Covered | 5 (CAR, Region I, III, VIII, IX) |
| School Divisions | 44 |
| Languages of Instruction | 9 |
| Assessment Period | April-May 2024 |
Table 3.1: Data Source and Scope of the ELLNA 2023-24 analysis
3.2 DepEd Proficiency Level Framework
The Bureau of Education Assessment defines five proficiency levels based on Mean Percentage Score (MPS):
| Level | MPS Range | Description |
|---|
| Highly Proficient | 90-100% | Learners are highly capable in all assessed skills with excellent reading, listening comprehension, and problem-solving abilities |
| Proficient | 75-89% | Learners are skilled in meeting learning standards with very good comprehension skills |
| Nearly Proficient | 50-74% | Learners meet the minimum level of skills in spelling, reading, listening comprehension, and numeracy |
| Low Proficient | 25-49% | Learners can identify strategies but have difficulty in comprehension, estimating, and calculating |
| Not Proficient | 0-24% | Learners have significant difficulty in most assessed areas |
Table 3.2: DepEd Proficiency Level Framework for ELLNA
Note: The minimum proficiency level threshold is set at 75% (Proficient).
3.3 Analytical Approach
This analysis follows industry-standard practices in educational data analysis:
- Descriptive Statistics: Mean, median, standard deviation, minimum, maximum
- Distribution Analysis: Histograms with proficiency zone overlays
- Correlation Analysis: Pearson correlation coefficients between subjects
- Comparative Benchmarking: Performance against DepEd proficiency thresholds
Compliance Note: In accordance with DepEd's Terms of Use, this analysis does not rank individual schools or divisions. Comparisons are made against DepEd proficiency benchmarks only.
4. Data Overview and Summary Statistics
4.1 Subject-Level Summary Statistics
As summarized in Table 4.1, all subjects fall within the "Nearly Proficient" level:
| Subject | Schools | Mean | Median | Std Dev | % ≥75% | Proficiency Level |
|---|
| English | 5,752 | 66.4% | 67.1% | 16.6 | 34.9% | Nearly Proficient |
| Filipino | 5,752 | 68.8% | 69.6% | 15.7 | 39.2% | Nearly Proficient |
| Numeracy | 5,598 | 56.4% | 59.2% | 23.3 | 26.4% | Nearly Proficient |
| Mother Tongue | 3,827 | 64.7% | 66.3% | 15.8 | 31.0% | Nearly Proficient |
| Overall | 5,752 | 65.3% | 66.1% | 15.9 | 32.2% | Nearly Proficient |
Table 4.1: Subject-Level Summary Statistics for ELLNA 2023-24
Analysis: The summary statistics reveal that all four subjects fall within the "Nearly Proficient" level (50-74%), with Filipino performing best at 68.8% and Numeracy lagging significantly at 56.4%. The high standard deviations (15-23 points) indicate substantial variation across schools, suggesting uneven access to quality education. The median scores closely align with means, indicating relatively symmetric distributions without severe skewness.
4.2 Proficiency Distribution
| Proficiency Level | Number of Schools | Percentage |
|---|
| Highly Proficient (90-100%) | 248 | 4.3% |
| Proficient (75-89%) | 1,602 | 27.9% |
| Nearly Proficient (50-74%) | 2,742 | 47.7% |
| Low Proficient (25-49%) | 1,153 | 20.0% |
| Not Proficient (0-24%) | 7 | 0.1% |
Table 4.2: Proficiency Distribution across all schools
Key Insight: As summarized in Table 4.2, only 32.2% of schools meet or exceed the DepEd proficiency threshold (≥75%), while 67.8% fall below.
5. Subject-Level Performance Analysis
5.1 English Language Performance
Figure 1: Distribution of English Mean Percentage Scores Across Schools
Chart Interpretation: The English score distribution shows a bell-shaped curve centered around 67%, with the mean (66.4%) and median (67.1%) closely aligned. The distribution is predominantly within the "Nearly Proficient" zone (50-74%), with only 34.9% of schools achieving the Proficient threshold of 75% or higher.
The shaded zones represent DepEd proficiency levels:
- 🔴 Red: Not Proficient (0-24%)
- 🟠 Orange: Low Proficient (25-49%)
- 🟡 Amber: Nearly Proficient (50-74%)
- 🟢 Light Green: Proficient (75-89%)
- 🟢 Dark Green: Highly Proficient (90-100%)
The dashed vertical lines at 50% and 75% mark the key proficiency thresholds.
5.2 Filipino Language Performance
Figure 2: Distribution of Filipino Mean Percentage Scores Across Schools
Chart Interpretation: Filipino demonstrates the strongest performance among all subjects with a mean of 68.8% and median of 69.6%. The distribution shows a slight left skew with more mass toward higher scores. Approximately 39.2% of schools achieve Proficient status (≥75%), the highest among all four subjects.
This stronger performance in Filipino may reflect the language's prevalence as a lingua franca across Philippine regions, making it more accessible to learners regardless of their mother tongue.
5.3 Numeracy Performance
Figure 3: Distribution of Numeracy Mean Percentage Scores Across Schools
Chart Interpretation: Numeracy presents the most concerning pattern with the lowest mean score of 56.4% and the widest distribution (SD = 23.3). The distribution is notably flatter with significant mass in the Low Proficient zone (25-49%). Only 26.4% of schools achieve Proficient status, and many schools score below 40%.
The 12.5 percentage point gap between Filipino and Numeracy represents the most significant learning deficit identified in this assessment. This correlates with the General Shaping Paper (2023) which identifies Problem Solving as a critical "Learning and Innovation Skill" where learners historically struggle, underscoring the urgent need for the implementation of ARAL-Mathematics.
5.4 Mother Tongue Performance
Figure 4: Distribution of Mother Tongue Mean Percentage Scores Across
Schools
Chart Interpretation: Mother Tongue assessment was administered to 3,827 schools (66.5% of the sample), excluding schools using English/Filipino or Tagalog as the language of instruction. The mean score is 64.7% with 31.0% of schools achieving Proficient status. The distribution is relatively symmetric.
Important Note: This assessment component will be discontinued starting SY 2025-2026 following the passage of RA 12027, which discontinued Mother Tongue as the medium of instruction in early grades. Future assessments under DM 087, s. 2025 will focus exclusively on English and Filipino competencies.
5.5 Overall Performance
Figure 5: Distribution of Overall Mean Percentage Scores Across Schools
Chart Interpretation: The overall MPS distribution synthesizes performance across all subjects, with a mean of 65.3% and median of 66.1%. The distribution is approximately normal with slight positive skew.
Critical Finding: 67.8% of schools fall below the Proficient threshold, indicating that the majority of Philippine public elementary schools are not yet meeting DepEd's proficiency standards at the end of Key Stage 1. Only 4.3% of schools achieve Highly Proficient status (≥90%).
6. Comparative Analysis
6.1 Subject Performance Comparison
Figure 6: National Subject Performance Comparison
Chart Interpretation: This bar chart directly compares mean performance across subjects with the 75% proficiency threshold marked. Filipino leads all subjects while Numeracy significantly lags behind.
The consistent gap between language subjects (English, Filipino, Mother Tongue) and Numeracy suggests that mathematics instruction requires targeted intervention strategies separate from language education approaches.
6.2 Proficiency Level Distribution
Figure 7: Schools by DepEd Proficiency Level
Chart Interpretation: The largest segment (47.7%) falls in the "Nearly Proficient" category, representing schools that are approaching but have not yet reached the proficiency threshold.
Combined proficiency breakdown:
- Meeting Standards (≥75%): 32.2% of schools
- Below Standards (<75%): 67.8% of schools
- Requiring Urgent Intervention (<50%): 20.1% of schools
6.3 The Numeracy Challenge
Figure 8: The Numeracy Challenge - Performance Gap Analysis
Chart Interpretation: This visualization highlights the 12.5 percentage point gap between Filipino (the highest-performing subject) and Numeracy (the lowest). The gap persists across all school sizes and regions, indicating it is not an artifact of specific contexts but rather a systemic challenge in early mathematics education.
This finding aligns with international assessments showing Philippine students' challenges in mathematics and underscores the need for focused numeracy interventions.
7. Regional Performance Analysis
7.1 Regional Performance Comparison
Figure 9: Regional Performance by DepEd Proficiency Level
Chart Interpretation: This horizontal bar chart ranks regions by overall MPS, color-coded by proficiency level (Table 7.1):
| Region | Overall MPS | Proficiency Level | Schools | Test-Takers |
|---|
| Region VIII (Eastern Visayas) | 71.1% | Nearly Proficient | 1,962 | 51,789 |
| Region III (Central Luzon) | 65.0% | Nearly Proficient | 1,364 | 91,413 |
| Region I (Ilocos Region) | 63.2% | Nearly Proficient | 1,107 | 43,472 |
| CAR (Cordillera) | 63.3% | Nearly Proficient | 527 | 9,905 |
| Region IX (Zamboanga Peninsula) | 56.1% | Nearly Proficient | 792 | 21,717 |
Table 7.1: Regional Performance Comparison by Overall MPS
Policy in Action: The 15-point gap between Region VIII and Region IX reveals substantial geographic inequities. This disparity provides the empirical basis for DepEd Memorandum No. 033, s. 2025, which explicitly designated Region IX as the pilot area for the Bawat Bata Makababasa Program (BBMP). The program targets 74,964 learners in the region with a 1:10 tutor-to-learner ratio to address this critical performance lag.
7.2 Subject Performance Heatmap by Region
Figure 10: Subject Performance Heatmap by Region
Chart Interpretation: The heatmap (Figure 10) reveals subject-specific patterns across regions, as summarized in Table 7.2:
| Region | English | Filipino | Numeracy | Mother Tongue |
|---|
| Region VIII | 70.5% | 73.0% | 66.7% | 69.4% |
| Region III | 66.9% | 69.1% | 58.7% | 56.9% |
| Region I | 64.6% | 67.9% | 51.7% | 64.8% |
| CAR | 66.2% | 66.7% | 55.9% | 64.4% |
| Region IX | 59.5% | 62.5% | 40.9% | 54.9% |
Table 7.2: Subject Performance Heatmap by Region
Critical Observation: Numeracy is consistently the weakest subject across all regions, with Region IX showing particularly low performance (40.9%). The color gradient from red (lower) to green (higher) immediately highlights areas requiring attention.
8. Language of Instruction Analysis
8.1 Performance by Language of Instruction
Figure 11: Performance Distribution by Language of Instruction
Chart Interpretation: Box plots show performance distributions for each language of instruction with at least 20 schools:
| Language | Schools | Test-Takers | Mean MPS |
|---|
| Waray | 1,314 | 32,678 | 69.6% |
| Ilokano/Iloko | 960 | 25,770 | 66.3% |
| English/Filipino | 154 | 2,262 | 65.7% |
| Tagalog | 1,771 | 97,710 | 64.3% |
| Sinugbuanong Binisaya/Cebuano | 1,178 | 35,790 | 63.8% |
| Kapampangan | 138 | 10,122 | 59.6% |
| Pangasinan/Pangasinense | 235 | 13,840 | 56.4% |
Table 8.1: Performance Distribution by Language of Instruction
The red dashed line indicates the national mean (65.3%). Languages with tighter distributions (smaller boxes) suggest more consistent instructional quality, while wider distributions indicate greater variability in educational outcomes.
8.2 Language Coverage and Scale
Figure 12: Language of Instruction Coverage
Chart Interpretation: Tagalog dominates with 1,771 schools (30.8%) and 97,710 test-takers, followed by Waray (1,314 schools), Cebuano (1,178 schools), and Ilokano (960 schools). The concentration of test-takers in Tagalog schools reflects the geographic distribution of the sampled regions and has implications for the representativeness of national statistics.
9. Statistical Relationships
9.1 Subject Correlation Analysis
Figure 13: Subject Correlation Matrix
Chart Interpretation: All subject pairs show strong positive correlations (Table 9.1), indicating that schools performing well in one subject tend to perform well in others.
| Subject Pair | Correlation (r) |
|---|
| English ↔ Filipino | 0.91 |
| English ↔ Mother Tongue | 0.81 |
| Filipino ↔ Mother Tongue | 0.83 |
| English ↔ Numeracy | 0.73 |
| Filipino ↔ Numeracy | 0.74 |
| Mother Tongue ↔ Numeracy | 0.81 |
Table 9.1: Subject Correlation Matrix of Pearson Coefficients
Key Insight: The strongest correlation is between English and Filipino (r = 0.91), suggesting shared underlying language learning factors. Numeracy shows the weakest correlations with other subjects (r = 0.73-0.81), confirming that mathematical skills develop somewhat independently from language skills and may require different instructional approaches.
9.2 English vs Filipino Relationship
Figure 14: English vs Filipino Performance Scatter Plot
Chart Interpretation: This scatter plot visualizes the strong positive relationship (r = 0.91) between English and Filipino performance at the school level. Each point represents a school, color-coded by region.
The tight clustering around the diagonal indicates that schools rarely excel in one language while struggling in the other. This supports the theoretical framework that foundational language skills are transferable across languages when properly taught.
10. School Size Analysis
10.1 Performance by School Size
Figure 15: Performance Distribution by School Size Category
Chart Interpretation: Schools are categorized by the number of Grade 3 test-takers:
- Small schools (1-10 students): Wider performance variability, likely due to statistical noise from small sample sizes
- Medium schools (11-50 students): More consistent performance around the mean
- Larger schools (50+ students): Cluster closer to the mean with more predictable performance
Size alone does not determine outcomes, but larger schools may have more stable, predictable performance due to sample size effects.
10.2 School Size Distribution
Figure 16: School Size Density Distribution
Chart Interpretation: The density plot reveals that the majority of schools have relatively small Grade 3 cohorts, with the distribution heavily right-skewed. Most schools have fewer than 50 test-takers, with a peak around 20-30 students. This reflects the prevalence of small, rural elementary schools in the Philippine public education system.
11. Performance Gap Analysis
11.1 Distribution of Subject Gaps
Figure 17: Distribution of Performance Gaps Between Subjects
Chart Interpretation: This histogram shows the within-school gap between the highest and lowest subject scores. The distribution is centered around 15-20 percentage points, meaning most schools have significant internal variation across subjects.
Some schools show gaps exceeding 40 percentage points, indicating highly uneven subject mastery. Schools with large gaps may benefit from targeted interventions in their weakest subjects (typically Numeracy).
11.2 Performance Gaps by Region
Figure 18: Performance Gaps by Region
Chart Interpretation: Box plots of within-school performance gaps across regions reveal that Region IX exhibits the largest median gap, consistent with its overall lower performance and specific challenges in Numeracy.
Regions with tighter gap distributions (like Region VIII) demonstrate more balanced instruction across subjects, suggesting better-rounded curriculum implementation.
12. Conclusions and Recommendations
12.1 Summary of Key Findings
-
Overall Performance Below Target: With a national overall MPS of 65.3%, Philippine Grade 3 learners are collectively performing at the "Nearly Proficient" level, below the DepEd-mandated 75% proficiency threshold.
-
Critical Numeracy Gap: The 12.5 percentage point gap between Filipino and Numeracy represents the most urgent learning challenge, with only 26.4% of schools achieving Proficient status in Numeracy.
-
Regional Disparities: The 15-point performance gap between the highest (Region VIII) and lowest (Region IX) performing regions indicates significant geographic inequities in educational outcomes.
-
Language Performance: Filipino is the strongest-performing subject (68.8%), followed by English (66.4%) and Mother Tongue (64.7%), all within the Nearly Proficient range.
-
Strong Subject Correlations: High correlations between language subjects (r > 0.9) suggest that foundational literacy skills transfer across languages, while lower correlations with Numeracy indicate mathematics requires distinct instructional approaches.
12.2 Policy Recommendations
-
Prioritize Numeracy Intervention via ARAL Program: The identified "Numeracy Crisis" must be addressed through the ARAL-Mathematics component of the ARAL Program (RA 12028). As mandated by DepEd Order No. 018, s. 2025, schools must utilize the "problem-solving" focus in the General Shaping Paper (2023) to design interventions for Low Proficient learners.
-
Institutionalize Literacy Recovery: The ARAL-Reading component should be deployed to bridge literacy gaps. For Region IX specifically, the full implementation of the Bawat Bata Makababasa Program (BBMP) pilot (DM 033, s. 2025) is critical to closing the regional disparity.
-
Utilize Targeted Funds: Schools in 4th and 5th class municipalities should leverage the School Innovation and Improvement Fund (SIIF) per DepEd Memorandum No. 073, s. 2025 to finance localized literacy and numeracy projects. Additionally, regions should utilize Program Support Funds (PSF) as outlined in DM 034, s. 2025 for material production and teacher training.
-
Improve Data Utilization & Timeliness: As noted in the BEA Technical Notes (2025), the delay in results distribution hinders immediate intervention. The feedback loop must be accelerated so that ELLNA results can inform the Individualized Learning Plans (ILPs) required under DO 006, s. 2025.
-
Protect Teacher Time: While interventions are necessary, they must be balanced against DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024 (Immediate Removal of Administrative Tasks). Schools should utilize Learning Camp Volunteers (LCVs) and ensure that teachers conducting remedial sessions are compensated with Teaching Overload Pay or Vacation Service Credits as per DO 005, s. 2024 and DO 013, s. 2024.
-
Monitor Language Policy Transition: With RA 12027 discontinuing Mother Tongue instruction and DO 020, s. 2025 enforcing Filipino and English as the primary MOI, robust monitoring is required to assess the impact on learning outcomes in future ELLNA administrations (now shifted to Grade 4).
12.3 Limitations
This analysis is subject to the following limitations:
- Geographic Scope: Limited to 5 of 17 Philippine regions, representing a selected subset of schools.
- Cross-Year Comparisons: Per DepEd's Terms of Use, cross-year comparisons are not valid due to variations in test difficulty.
- No School Rankings: Results should not be used to rank schools but rather to inform targeted interventions and policy development.
- Data Timeliness: As noted by BEA in their 2025 Technical Notes, "Limited utilization of ELLNA results occurs because SDOs, school heads, and teachers do not receive the latest results promptly," creating a lag between assessment and intervention.
13. References
-
Bureau of Education Assessment. (2025). Technical Notes on Learning Outcomes Data. Department of Education, Philippines.
-
Department of Education. (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. (2022). DepEd Order No. 29, s. 2022: Adoption of the Basic Education Monitoring and Evaluation Framework.
-
Department of Education. (2022). DepEd Order No. 027, s. 2022: Conduct of Rapid Assessment in School Year 2021-2022 for Learning Recovery as Well as in Preparation for the 2024 Baseline System Assessment.
-
Department of Education. (2023). General Shaping Paper: MATATAG Curriculum. Bureau of Curriculum Development.
-
Department of Education. (2024). DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024: Immediate Removal of Administrative Tasks of Public School Teachers.
-
Department of Education. (2024). DepEd Memorandum No. 016, s. 2024: Administration of the ELLNA, NATG6, and NATG12 for School Year 2023-2024.
-
Department of Education. (2025). DepEd Order No. 018, s. 2025: Implementing Guidelines of the Academic Recovery and Accessible Learning (ARAL) Program.
-
Department of Education. (2025). DepEd Order No. 020, s. 2025: Policy on the Medium of Instruction for Kindergarten to Grade 3 Effective School Year 2025-2026.
-
Department of Education. (2025). DepEd Memorandum No. 033, s. 2025: Supplemental Guidelines for the Implementation of the Bawat Bata Makababasa Program.
-
Department of Education. (2025). DepEd Memorandum No. 073, s. 2025: Allocation and Release of the School Innovation and Improvement Fund (SIIF).
-
Department of Education. (2025). DepEd Memorandum No. 087, s. 2025: Administration of the ELLNA for School Year 2025-2026.
-
Republic of the Philippines. (2013). Republic Act No. 10533: Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013.
-
Republic of the Philippines. (2024). Republic Act No. 12027: An Act Discontinuing the Use of the Mother Tongue as Medium of Instruction from Kindergarten to Grade 3.
-
Republic of the Philippines. (2024). Republic Act No. 12028: Academic Recovery and Accessible Learning (ARAL) Program Act.
Data Attribution
This analysis uses data from the Department of Education (DepEd), Philippines, made available under Executive Order No. 2, 2016 (Freedom of Information).
Compliance Statement:
- This analysis does not rank schools or divisions
- Comparisons are made against DepEd proficiency levels only
- This work is not endorsed by or affiliated with DepEd
- Data is presented "as is" without modification
Appendix: List of Visualizations
Table A.1: List of Visualizations included in the ELLNA Report