Readiness of School Testing Coordinators in Administering DepEd’s National Assessment

This study examined the readiness of School Testing Coordinators (STCs) in administering DepEd’s national assessments within the Schools Division Office of Caloocan City. Specifically, the investigation determined the profile characteristics of STCs, assessment administration practices within the division.
The study utilized an explanatory sequential mixed-methods research design. The quantitative phase employed descriptive, assessed their level of readiness across four operational domains, identified significant differences and relationships among variables, examined the predictive influence of readiness domains on overall readiness, and explored the challenges encountered during assessment implementation. The study further served as a basis for the development of a proposed capacity-building program intended to strengthen comparative, correlational, and predictive analyses using a researcher-developed readiness survey questionnaire administered to forty- eight (48) officially designated School Testing Coordinators from public elementary and secondary schools in the Schools Division Office of Caloocan City. The qualitative phase followed the quantitative analysis and utilized semi-structured interviews, open- ended responses, and document review procedures to contextualize and explain the statistical findings. Thematic analysis anchored on Braun and Clarke’s framework was employed in analysing qualitative data.
Findings revealed that most School Testing Coordinators were within the mid- career stage, possessed graduate-level academic preparation, and had multiple years of operational exposure in national assessment administration. In terms of readiness,respondents demonstrated a generally high level of preparedness across the domains of regulatory knowledge readiness, operational and organizational readiness, logistical and resource readiness, and coordination and communication readiness. Among the identified domains, coordination and communication readiness obtained the highest level of assessment, while logistical and resource readiness emerged as the domain with relatively greater operational concerns. Inferential analysis further revealed that selected profile variables, particularly years of service, length of designation, and frequency of participation in national assessment trainings, significantly influenced readiness levels. Correlational findings likewise indicated significant relationships between professional exposure variables and readiness conditions. Regression analysis demonstrated that operational and organizational readiness and coordination and communication readiness significantly predicted the overall readiness of School Testing Coordinators in administering national assessments.
Qualitative findings revealed recurring operational challenges involving workload congestion, time constraints, and delayed dissemination of information, logistical limitations, resource insufficiency, and coordination pressures during national assessment periods. Despite these challenges, School Testing Coordinators demonstrated adaptive practices, procedural commitment, and collaborative strategies in sustaining assessment operations within varying institutional conditions. Triangulation of statistical findings, interview narratives, and documentary evidence further confirmed that readiness is shaped not only by individual competence but also by institutional support systems, organizational conditions, and operational resources available within schools.
Based on the findings, the study concluded that School Testing Coordinators in the Schools Division Office of Caloocan City generally exhibit a high level of readiness in administering DepEd’s national assessments. However, variations in operational conditions, training exposure, and institutional support continue to influence the consistency and sustainability of assessment implementation practices. The study therefore recommends the strengthening of division-wide capacity-building programs, continuous assessment-related training, institutional support mechanisms, and operational monitoring systems to further enhance the readiness and effectiveness of School Testing Coordinators in national assessment administration.

School Testing Coordinators, readiness, national assessments, assessment administration, operational readiness, educational assessment

1. Banaag, M., & Salmon, R. (2025). Collaborative implementation practices and operational adaptability in educational organizations. Journal of Educational Administration and Leadership, 18(2), 44–61. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2016). Research in education (10th ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Brookhart, S. M. (2020). Classroom assessment and educational measurement. Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Burns, R. B. (2017). Introduction to research methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Caliwan, R. (2020). Assessment practices among public-school teachers in selected Philippine schools. Philippine Journal of Educational Assessment, 12(1), 21–35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2019). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. De la Cruz, J. (2019). Classroom-based evaluation practices among junior high school teachers. Philippine Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 56–71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. 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, Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Department of Education. (2018). DepEd Order No. 029, s. 2018: Policy guidelines on the administration of the national achievement test and other large-scale assessments. Department of Education, Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Department of Education. (2021). Basic education monitoring and assessment framework. Department of Education, Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Department of Education. (2023). DepEd Memorandum on the administration of national assessments. Department of Education, Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Gonzales, P., & Firestone, W. A. (2014). Educational assessment implementation and organizational capacity in public schools. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 22(87), 1–27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2015). Basic econometrics (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2019). Practical research: Planning and design (12th ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Mertens, D. M. (2020). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Newton, P. E. (2018). Educational assessment and the validity of testing systems. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Othman, N., Rahman, H., & Karim, A. (2024). Operational preparedness and assessment governance in educational institutions. International Journal of Educational Management and Governance, 9(1), 15–34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2021). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Raosoft, Inc. (2004). Raosoft sample size calculator. http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Reyes, M. T. (2022). Operational readiness and procedural compliance among school assessment coordinators in Philippine public schools. Asian Journal of Educational Management, 10(3), 88–104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Stiggins, R. J. (1991). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(7), 534–539. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2015). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Trochim, W. M. K. (2020). Research methods knowledge base. Atomic Dog Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. World Bank. (2022). The state of global learning poverty: 2022 update. World Bank Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study