“Ethical Standards in Tests: Test Preparation and

Administration in Philippine Education,

A study in Zamboanga del Sur”

Wendell Glenn P. Cagape

Student, PhD in Educational Management
La Salle University Burgos Street, Ozamis City, Philippines
cagapewendell_gl@yahoo.com

Abstract

Ethical standards in tests in its preparation as well as in its administration denotes highest level
of educational quality, something that truly represents the capacity, skills competencies and
ability of pupils and students in the Philippine educational sector. Absence of these standards
results in poor academic performance among students primarily because they were assessed
wrongly by teachers prior to their present educational level or status.

The study aims to find out, in spite of the fact that there is an obvious absence of ethical
standards in tests ( at all stages) that is being adhered to and subscribed by teachers in the basic
and higher education sectors respectively. It focuses on the basic education primarily because the
pupils are the most vulnerable academic sector and secondly, with the tertiary sector because this
is the sector wherein all products of basic education usually go. Further, it seek to respond to the
clamor for a unified, reflective and codified ethical standards that governs the tests preparations
and administrations among education stakeholders in the Philippine context, albeit situated in
Zamboanga del Sur which is situated in Western Mindanao.

In this area where the inclination towards codified ethical standards is high, it is prudently
essential that research outputs/results are widely disseminated for replication and its further
enhancement that greatly benefits the students in the Philippine educational sector. In this, the
study proposes for the adoption of a Filipino-styled Ethical Standards on tests.

Keywords: (ethics, education, test, evaluation, assessment, basic education, tertiary)

1. Introduction:

The ethical requirement for the administration of measurement and

evaluation in any school setting far precedes the personal convenience of
the faculty or teacher administering the tests to verify student or pupil
competencies and skills in a given area. Institutions around the world have
institutionalized the ethical standards pertaining to the administration of
tests as a component of measurement and evaluation on student or pupil’s
academic performance.

Several institutions of basic education, higher learning institutions have

intensified the adaptability of a Code of Ethics that governs action and
decision of faculty members and teachers in administering tests in classroom
setting. Among those who successfully institutionalized ethical standards for
teachers is the Association of American Educators in which they have
adopted Code of Ethics which is openly and commonly observed among
American educators. The professional educator acts with conscientious effort to exemplify
the highest ethical standards(). A similar code is presently being adopted by
the teachers teaching in New Zealand wherein they are exhorted to be
committed to the attainment of the highest standards of professional service in the promotion of
learning by those they teach, mindful of the learner's ability, cultural background, gender, age
or stage of development (). Further, the New Zealand Education Council
promotes the Commitment towards Learners as a component of the Code of
Ethics which highlights key ethical standards as follows: a) develop and maintain
professional relationships with learners based upon the best interests of those learners, b) base
their professional practice on continuous professional learning, the best knowledge available
about curriculum content and pedagogy, together with their knowledge about those they teach, c)
present subject matter from an informed and balanced viewpoint, d) encourage learners to think
critically about significant social issues, e) cater for the varied learning needs of diverse learners,
f) promote the physical, emotional, social, intellectual and spiritual wellbeing of learners, g)
protect the confidentiality of information about learners obtained in the course of professional
service, consistent with legal requirements (Ibid, 2007).

The emphasis on these ethical standards among educational institutions in

most advanced countries prompted a seeming validation study on checking
on the ethical standards as observed among teachers and faculty in the
Philippines. In a nutshell, the contextualization of ethical standards in
measurement and evaluation becomes relevant and significant in the search
for the appropriate and ethical methodologies to improve the state of
Philippine education within the country.

Further, the study cuts through all sectors of Philippine educational sectors.
The study of ethical standards cuts across all sectors of education, from
elementary, secondary and tertiary levels of education, both private and
public.

As a result, the study aims to pursue queries in the area of ethical standards
in tests, from test preparation to administration and evaluation. Specifically,
it seeks to be enlightened by the following questions:
• Are teachers in both the public and private schools in the Philippine
education sector observes appropriate and ethical standards in
tests preparation, and its administration in the following phases;
○ Before the Tests;
 ○ During the Tests;
○ After the Tests.
• Are these ethical standards adopted by teachers in both public and
private schools in Zamboanga del Sur conforms to the widely
adopted Ethical Standards by the Washington Educational Research
Association (WERA).
• What are the implications derived from the results of the study.

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES:

Because of the nature of this undertaking, it uses qualitative-descriptive approaches employing

the use of a questionnaire being distributed to teachers as respondents. It selects respondents
through random sampling although the selections of schools to be covered are determined
through purposive sampling technique.

The study is conducted in schools situated within the province of Zamboanga del Sur although;
most of the concentrations of schools are based in the City of Pagadian, primarily because of its
strategic contribution as a center of education of the province, it is considered to be
representative of the entire province.

Further, the respondents in the study are classroom teachers from both the private and public
schools covering elementary, secondary and tertiary levels of education. The study also involves
middle management personnel of the Department of Education as surveyed by the researcher
during their year-end division-level Training for Trainors on the School Improvement Plan (SIP)
in Hotel Guillermo on November 29, 2007.

The researcher wrote a letter of request for study locale to the Principals of the schools and
obtains prior approval for the conduct of the survey involving their teachers. Upon receipt of the
positive approval, the researcher then proceeded to conduct the survey by distributing the
questionnaire. By the nature of the questionnaire, the research makes use of simple descriptive
statistical treatment like the mean and percentages.

Ethical Standards in tests in the Philippines

In the Philippines, much more in the Province of Zamboanga del Sur,
teachers in the basic education sector follows the 2000 Department of
Education Service Manual. The manual highlights the preparation and
administration of tests to pupils and students in the basic education sector.
Among Higher Education Institutions and the SUCs, mostly, the ethical
standards are deeply reliant on the policy pronouncements of the centralized
Board of Regents or Board of Trustees. However, the practice of these ethical
standards in test preparation and administration, much needs to be
understood. Existing ethical practices among teachers and faculty members
needs to be validated to existing standard of ethics that has been openly
subscribed among teachers and educators in the USA and New Zealand.
The yardstick for engaging in the study of ethical standards the Philippines
are those established codes of ethics and widely adopted by the forerunners
in education because there are dearth in codified ethical standards in the
country. Most institutions of learning have not codified ethical standards and
worse, teachers have not openly promoted the laudable practice of ethical
standards to other members of the academic community.

In Zamboanga del Sur, ethical standards in tests present opportunity to

highlight the appropriate and ethical practices among teachers and establish
codified system of respectable ethical standards that will engage the role of
classroom teachers and their supervisors to serve the interests of the
learners in their schools and institutions.

In test and measurements, there are two sets of tests – standardized or

teacher-made tests. Both exemplify one common requirement and that is
ethical standards to safeguard students and pupils from potential abuses and
unethical practices of educators. It is believed to be so because as much as
possible, schools must safeguard students and pupils from these threats
because they have no choice in whether to attend or not attend schooling,
both in public and privates schools. Inside the classroom, the symbol of
authority rests entirely on the shoulders of the teachers and instructors.
Students and pupils are made to be under the circumstance that their fate in
terms of education entirely rests on the integrity of teachers and instructors
administering the tests. Tests are part assessment and measurement, of
which results provide for entirely brighter future at best or uncertain and
unstable future, at worse.

Teaching is to fill in the mind of the learner by information and knowledge of

facts for future use(). And because of this very nature of teaching, the
relevance of the ethical administration of tests that adequately or sufficiently
covers instruction is desired. In this context, teaching is defined as a way of
molding pupils and students for the future. It does not tinkle with the
present, much more, not of the past however, it dwells on the capacity and
capability of the student to hurdle the challenges of the future. The teacher
is not anymore exclusively dealing with the present but more so with the
future of every child in the classroom.

Further, “teaching is a profession that has both a knowledge base and an

ethical/moral base. Like other professionals who possess knowledge and
expertise their clients do not have and whose actions and judgments affecter
their clients in many ways, classroom teachers are responsible for
conducting themselves in an ethical manner. This responsibility is particularly
important in education, because unlike most other professions, pupils have
no choice about whether they will or will not attend school” ().
This observation by Airasian echoes more clearly in the Philippine
educational setting. It is observable that pupils and even tertiary level
students have no openly adhered freedom of choice in the manner they
choose schools and institutions. Prior to enrolment, most often, parents
decide where the child goes for elementary, secondary and college or
university. In these vital decisions, only a handful of students and pupils are
consulted by their parents prior to enrolment. Even in the choice of
baccalaureate courses in college or university and the choice of colleges or
universities are not entirely of the decision of the student. This cultural flaws
and malpractice hindered individual progress based on the skills and
capacity of pupils and students. This heightened the vulnerability of pupils
and students from abuses and indiscretions those who decide for their fate.
Similarly, this can also be true in school and classroom choices. Pupils and
students are not empowered to chose what topic to be tested on, which
areas they wanted to be assessed, in what manner the assessments are to
be done and in what place will the tests be made. Worse, especially in a
classroom that are adjacent or along major thoroughfares that elicited
unnecessary disturbances brought about by traffic congestions and noise
pollution, often, pupils and students do not have the choice whether to take
the tests or examinations in other much conducive and student-friendly
classrooms away from the population that affects his performance during the
tests.

It is because in almost everything that is inside the classroom, decision-

making processes are unilateral. It is the teacher or the instructor who
usually decides and the decisions are most of the time, in conflict with
established norms and practices of the pupils and students. A classic
example of such unilateral decision illustrates the supremacy of teachers and
instructors in selecting the time and day for make-up classes. To a certain
extent, teachers engaged the students and pupils in discussion and
consultation pertaining to the proposed make-up class, however, when the
decision is made and the entire class agrees, it can seldom be implemented
for reasons entirely based on the availability of teachers and instructors,
worse, it could be cancelled due to personal appointments of teachers and
instructors like bringing their child to the dentist, appointment at the beauty
parlor, out-of-town trips and lastly, sickness. Due to such ‘personal’ reasons,
the teacher or instructor have unwittingly deprived the pupils and students
their inherent right to learn and acquire knowledge that can help them
survive in this highly competitive environment. With this, the students and
pupils does have little choice as to the effectiveness of their decisions as
arrived at commonly agreed principles but all those have to succumb to the
whims and demands of time of the teachers and instructors. Classroom
supremacy by teachers and instructors take reins of the outcome of learning.

As embodied by the Code of Ethics by the New York Board of Education,

Principle Five of the Code establishes the need for collaboration with parents
and community and further states that the teacher or instructor should “act
only in the best interests of the students”(). The best interests of students
include ‘quality of schooling’(). Further, the use of the best interest doctrine represented
a 20th century shift in public policy. The best interests doctrine is an aspect of parens patriae
and, in the United States. It has replaced the tender years doctrine, which rested on the basis that
children are not resilient and almost any change in a child's living situation would be detrimental
to his or her well being(). Although its origin pertains to conjugal relationships in view of the
inherent role of parents towards the child, ‘best interests’ of the child can also be favorably
invoke in the relationship between teachers and pupils or students. It is because teachers and
instructors act as surrogate ‘mother’ or ‘father’ to the child once inside the school premises.
Inherently, it is ethical that teachers and instructors acting as ‘parents’ should see to it that in all
its dealings with the pupil or student and in all activities involving them, their best interests
should be at the forefront of all considerations.

Foremost, the educator, believing in the worth and dignity of each human being, recognizes the
supreme importance of the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, and the nurture of the
democratic principles. Essential to these goals is the protection of freedom to learn and to teach
and the guarantee of equal educational opportunity for all. The educator accepts the
responsibility to adhere to the highest ethical standards(). The said preamble of the National
Education Association appropriately highlighted the role of educator in the conduct of his/her
profession in view of all his/her activities that includes the administration of tests and
measurement. Also, by accepting teaching careers and upon signing teaching contracts, teachers
and instructors are duty-bound to adhere to the highest ethical standards in the conduct of their
classroom management. Unfortunately, in the Philippine setting, a teacher or instructor may sign
appointment papers and take oaths of office but are not oriented with the ‘highest ethical
standards’ expected of them. They may have signed contracts already and receive copies of their
signed appointment from the Division or District Offices sans the recitation and indoctrination of
ethical standards inherent in teaching professions. Perhaps, they recite portions that exhort
ethical standards in oaths of office or other documents and they often swear to it in front of
witnesses present, but as to the regular adherence to the code of ethics in teaching profession it
remains to be questionable. The 2000 Service Manual of the Department of Education never
mentions about ethical standards for education and teaching professions. This service manual is
the one being used by school heads in school management and operations, however, Republic
Act 6713 sets the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees.
The law governs the ethical standards of all public employees in all agencies in government
including the Philippine Department of Education. Moreover, the law as it is a generic law that
governs ethical standards and code of conduct of government employees but the need for
adopting ethical policies and standards in the Department of Education in consideration of its
special nature of profession. There should be distinct and exclusive ethical standards by which
teachers and their acts can be easily judge using such code of ethical standards as adopted by the
teachers themselves and openly promoted by the Department.

Tests is “a measuring instrument whose general characteristic is that it

forces responses from a pupil and such responses are considered to be
indicative of the pupil’s skill, knowledge, attitude, etc (). Further, tests are
composed of short communications called questions or items(). As such,
results of tests often drive teachers and instructors and formally, institutions
to recognize the capability of pupils and students in certain standards and
lesson as well as skills. If the preparation of such tests in cases of teacher-
made tests are flawed and mired in unorthodox manner, the results of such
tests will affect ‘quality education’ as it is from the standpoint of the school
or institution. Most often too, the remarks of the teacher or instructor, even if
it is made out of flawed assumptions become the official stand of the
institution or school and unfortunately too, pupils and students including
their parents do not have avenues to contests decisions arising from flawed
assessments and evaluation measures that included tests other than in
courts. Sadly, the pupils and students, who are vulnerable in any school
system in the country concede to such decision without realizing that this
will influence that outcome of their productive stay in school and their future
capability to engage in much higher educational requirements in education.
Almost always too, parents will not pursue lawsuits in contesting teacher’s or
instructor’s unethical practices in the classroom and choose to re-enroll or
repeat the same course or subject which translates to additional costs on
education. As a result, for those whose finances are not as stable, pupil and
students to drop out of school. If this be continued to prevail, education is
direly jeopardized.

No less than the president commented in her speech before the delegates to
the 2001 Educators Congress held in Manila on April 23, 2001 that “we must
equalize access and expand the opportunities of the poor to acquire the kind of education they
want”(). This presidential commentary on the state of educational commitment by the
government transcends departmental commitment in the areas of opening up opportunities to
better serve stakeholders in basic education in the country but also encapsulates the need to
improve the manner we manage classroom to be more attuned to ‘quality’ education and such
would have to adhere to certain standards that included ethical standards that expands over
classroom assessment and evaluation.

Quality education can never be achieved if teachers and instructors are not adhering to the
commonly accepted and widely subscribed Code of Ethics that explicitly details its relationship
with their pupils and students. Such adherence will safeguard the ‘best interests’ of the child in
every classroom and further stress the serious commitment among teachers and instructors to
equitably assessed and evaluates through tests and measurement every student based on
established standards and based solely on their individual capabilities and capacities as well as
skills.

The Code of Ethics also includes specifically tailor-fitted Codes of Ethics and among the
laudable codes worthy of emulation is the one crafted and adopted by the National Council on
Measurement in Education called the Code of Professional Responsibilities in Educational
Measurement.

Accordingly, the Code of Professional Responsibilities in Educational Measurement applies to

any type of assessment that occurs as part of the educational process, including formal and
informal, traditional and alternative techniques for gathering information used in making
educational decisions at all levels. These techniques include, but are not limited to, large-scale
assessments at the school, district, state, national, and international levels; standardized tests;
observational measures; teacher–conducted assessments; assessment support materials; and other
achievement, aptitude, interest, and personality measures used in and for education().

Common observation among schools, colleges and universities in the country

nowadays yields concerns as to the kind of instruction that is simply in
compliance with the curriculum as required by either the DepEd or the
Commission on Higher Education, but this aspect is the end result of
curriculum implementation. In order for us to better understand ethical
teaching as openly espoused by Dr. Patti Harrington, we have to go back to
the curriculum on Teacher Education programs as provided for by the
Commission on Higher Education.

A cursory review of Commission Memorandum Order 59 S of 1996 signed by

CHED Chairman Angel C. Alcala yields an impression that ethical
consideration for teaching profession and ethics education is not a
fundamental and central course offering in the new General Education
Curriculum (GEC) which almost every student in education has undertaken in
the past. The nearest one could reach in terms of the study of ethics in
education as well as in our courses to be offered under the new GEC is under
Humanities and Social Sciences, specifically under Philosophy. However,
ethics is widely taught in philosophical courses in colleges and universities,
at the end of each course, the ‘ethics thought’ failed to germinate in the
interests of education as a profession in the case of students pursuing
education courses or in political science students who ended up struggling to
pass the bar because they find it too hard to focus on the contexts and
contents of bar questions in ‘legal ethics”. Ethics as a course in the
curriculum and as taught in colleges and universities should be able to
empower future teachers, much more with other professions to openly
subscribe to the Code of Ethics and places them in the highest regard of
public service. So much for ethics in the General Education Curriculum.

An in-depth study of Republic Act 9155, otherwise known as “Governance of

Basic Education Act of 2001” which governs the operationalization of the
Department of Education in the country provides the wider picture on the
role ethics education in the mainstream public basic educational sector. As
an inherent component of its declared policies, the law stipulates that “It
shall be the goal of basic education to provide them with the skills,
knowledge and values they need to become caring, self- reliant, productive
and patriotic citizens”(). In this context, perhaps ethics in education is part of
‘values’ as aspired in this law but this has to be given emphasis on the
products of basic education, that they will be imbued with certain ‘Filipino’
values that are inherently good and laudable. The law does not speak about
ethical practices of teachers working in the Department of Education from
the national level down the regional, division, district, and eventually to the
school level.
Quality standards in education are widely highlighted in RA 9155 but
unfortunately, ethical standards in education and in the teaching profession
under the Department of Education as enshrined in the law have not claimed
prominence. At the onset, it is understandable perhaps the absence is due in
part and whole to the extant Republic Act 6713 which provides for the Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for public officials and employees in the
government. Still, the law as it is does not cover ethical standards that can
easily be ascribed to the roles and responsibilities of teachers inside the
classroom. Teachers are public employees however, concerns of unethical
practices such as but not limited to tests preparation, administration,
classroom assessments and evaluation as well as measurement is not
covered by the law. Pupils and students as well as their parents can not, in
one way or the other, invoke RA 6713 if they are unjustly evaluated as a
result of flawed and unethical testing administration. Pupils and students are
not provided with mechanism, both absent in RA 6713 and RA 9155 to seek
redress against unethical practices of teachers and instructors pertaining to
classroom assessment and evaluation.

Even Ricardo T. Gloria, former Secretary of the Department of Education

failed to highlight the role of ethics education in molding young Filipinos to
become active partners in societal development albeit he highlighted that
the “state provides for a broad general education that will assists individuals
in society to acquire the essential educational foundations for their
development into productive and versatile citizens”().

And taking into consideration that Philippine educational system is by nature

governed in tri-focal manner that is, elementary, secondary under DepEd,
Vocational and Technological short-term courses under TESDA and graduate
and higher education under SUCS/HEIs and CHED. Due to this tri-focalization
as claimed by Adriano Arcelo in his report presentation to the UNESCO,
supervision and management is problematical() thus adherence to ethical
standards is also problematical.

Perhaps, it is safe to infer that ethical standards in classroom assessment

including those in test preparation and administration is entirely included in
the Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees as prepared by the Civil Service Commission as it
stated that the rules shall be in consonance with Sec. 2 of RA 6713 to wit: “It
is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public
service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to
the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility,
integrity, competence and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead
modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest”().
Teaching ethics in education can be best applied on students pursuing
education as a profession. It is simply because at this crucial time of their
academic journey that a pre-service teacher can be taught the highest
ethical standards which will govern their future actions and decisions as
permanent teachers in either elementary or secondary schools. In this
regard, the Commission on Higher Education issued Commission
Memorandum Order 30 S of 2004 which sets the policies and guidelines for
the new Teacher Education curriculum for colleges and universities around
the country.

CMO 30 S of 2004 at face value, lacks the ‘ethical standards’ ingredient

among its recommended courses under the new curriculum. The CHED may
have successfully revised the Teacher Education curriculum but failed to
incorporate ethics education as one of the highlights of the course to better
prepare teachers in BEEd and BSEd baccalaureate programs to be effective
adherents of ethical standards in teaching profession thus easily replicating
the acceptance of and adoption of Codes of Ethics in Teaching Profession
among teachers in the future. Although one of the competency standards
that a new teacher as envisioned under this order is in the aspect that they
‘can demonstrate and practice professional and ethical requirements of the
teaching professions”(). Further, in education, “we expect our learners to
benefit from a curriculum promoting universal values because they are to
play a critical role in helping build a peaceful, prosperous, just and
sustainable global community”(). In this context, universal values should also
include ethical standards that promote fairness, equality and equity in
educational professions as well as in other professions.

In view of the desire of this undertaking to pursue ethics in education as a

driving factor that governs acts of teachers and instructors inside the
classroom, we understood that we refer social ethics as perhaps the ethical
standards that is suitably ideal for educational professions and acts of
teachers inside the classroom. Particularly, it refers to those studies of the
relation between individuals and society as well as in the role of social
authority(). It is simply because ethical standards that cover acts of teachers
and those who are in teaching professions are covered in one or the other by
social ethics as a major context of philosophy. Obviously, many ethics or
philosophy classes in colleges and universities are not focused on the
contextualization of ethical standards of teachers and those in the teaching
profession. Unfortunately, in most cases too, college or university instructors
handling philosophy and ethics are neither had teaching professional
background nor BEEd or BSEd degrees that complements the effective
integration of social ethics towards education as a professional opportunity
and as a community wherein learners are at its prime and central
considerations.
 High ethical standards in the testing process results to high evaluation of
learning which is central to the operationalization of any curriculum at any
levels of Philippine educational system. As commonly adhered to in
Philippine educational system, similar to any educational systems around the
world, central in the learning process is the curriculum and the different
components of curriculum points to the importance of the evaluative process
in learning(). However, before any evaluative process in learning commence,
test needs to be administered by teachers and instructors to arrive at
scientifically identifiable and verifiable assessments of student or pupil’s
academic performance based on the standards set in the curriculum.
Borrowing the concept of Jesus Palma (1992) however with brief
modifications, it is best to illustrate the components
TESTS of the evaluation
process of learning in the following diagram.

Learning Learning Evaluation of

Learning Learning
Objectives Content Experiences
Resources Outcomes

Although Palma (1992) effectively illustrated in his book the concept of the
evaluation of learning, it is best to also highlight the relationship between
learning experiences and resources to tests as well as the relationship of
tests to the evaluation of learning outcomes. It is of primary consideration
that these two relationships be established because as previously discussed,
ethical tests can conduct after ethical teaching. Effective and ethical
teaching reaps learning experiences that promotes well-balanced and
rewarding academic performance on the part of the students and pupils
which forms part of the entire evaluation of learning outcomes based on
established curricular standards.

Ethics in tests administration must be specifically emphasize in all teaching

profession in all levels in the educational system because results of such
affects evaluation of learning outcomes and scores are unfortunately,
becoming strong determinants of academic achievement in the Philippine
educational experience. In most cases than not, teachers in basic
educational system and instructors in colleges and universities often rely
heavily on scores garnered by pupils and students in tests as benchmarks for
academic performance in a given curricular standard. Unfortunately too,
those who usually receive high scores may not necessarily effectively
learning the curricular content as well as inculcated special learning
experiences to better prepare them for future undertakings. Scores are not
sole determinants in student and pupil assessment and scores are therefore
also affected by the presence or absence of ethical standards among those
who administers the tests in the classroom setting. It must be emphasized
that any test score simply describes a particular performance at a particular
time, and it may or may not be indicative of the child’s ability(). This
conclusive observation of Gelleman pertaining to the non-reliability of scores
unless validated by trends leading to the conclusion that the pupil or student
is a consistently of high academic performance or disappointingly low
academic performance.One test score will not make a huge difference in the
academic performance among pupils and students in a given test period
under the curriculum.

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY:

On the category “Communicate to students, parents and the public what any test does and does
not do, when and how it will be administered, and how the results may be appropriately used”,
majority or 64% of the respondents responded that it is “appropriate and ethical” as compared to
only 28% of them of responded that it is “somewhat appropriate and ethical”.

Communicate to students, parents and the public what any test does and does not do, when and
how it will be administered, and how the results may be appropriately used
Responses F Percentage
Appropriate and Ethical 39 63.9%
Somewhat appropriate and 17 27.8%
Ethical
Inappropriate and Unethical 0 0
Undecided or confused 3 4.9%
Total 59 96.6%

In this category, only 59 of the respondents answered item #1 from the questionnaire thus by way
of computation, there were only 96.6% of the respondents answered. As commonly practiced in
the Department of Education, the classroom teacher administering the tests normally
communicate to stakeholders in the educational sector as to what extent tests does and what it
does not do and the dates as well as the mechanics of the tests and how are results to be
interpreted and used. As widely practiced, the Department of Education usually issues
Memorandum Circular regarding the administration of the tests in district and school levels and
such issuances includes date, time and place of examination. In most cases too, a separate
Department Memorandum is being issued to designate tests proctors and administrators and how
the results of the test is to be used in the light of the tests.

Most of the teacher-respondents revealed that it is “appropriate and ethical” because they are
already used to the information campaigns regarding upcoming tests like NAT, NCAE and even
to some extent, classroom level information dissemination with regards to summative tests to be
administered by the teacher. At some point too, because in every test to be administered, it
requires that those who will be taking the tests be best informed of the mechanics of the tests and
when and where the test will be administered in order for students to prepare and study the
coverage of tests.

In education, it is proper and ethical to communicate to all stakeholders, including the students
who will be taking the tests, their parents and the community regarding the details of the tests
and how this can help in the assessment or for whatever specified purpose the tests are made for.
In all contexts and considerations, it is the primary duty of the teacher to inform and
communicate the kind of tests and its emphasis to parents and the students alike, in order for
them to be able to take hold of it in terms of preparations and the like. Many students who failed
in the tests because teachers and instructors short-circuited the test administration by failing to
communicate the details of the tests to students and the parents. One observable example of this
is the sudden change of classroom assignment as a venue for standardized tests, which often
times, happen in short notice. Parents and students alike will spend a good percentage of their
previous time locating the test venue and there were instances that the minutes they spent will be
forever loss because proctors will not give consideration to late comers as a result of this
predicament. Usually, teachers posts room assignments and names of test takers are either placed
conspicuously in strategic places near the entrance of the testing rooms, however, still, due
perhaps to erroneous entries (by omission or wrong spelling) the test takers find it hard to locate
their names and examinee number in case of the standardized tests. Again, the time spent for
locating their names and examinee number will take as much and will be disadvantageous as
well as stressful to the students taking the tests. These are some of the observable loopholes in
tests administration that oftentimes can be gleaned from any educational system in the country
simply because there are those who failed to communicate to parents and students about the
examination details.

In the aspect of “Teach to the Essential Learning Requirements (national curriculum

standards) at each grade level so that students will learn the skills and knowledge they need to
accurately show what they know and can do”, 72.1% of the respondents revealed that they
consider this “appropriate and ethical” while 24.5% of them revealed that they consider it,
“Somewhat appropriate and ethical”. In this, it can be understandably gleaned in the common
practice of the Department of Education as stipulated in their numerous department issuances
pertaining to the teaching of NAT covered subjects, that teachers are mandated to teach these
basic necessities at grade levels in order for them to hurdle the race towards academic
excellence.

Mostly, in the basic education sector, teachers bat for the familiarization and eventually, for
mastery in the key identified skills and competencies at the grade level, prior to the granting of
exit report results as depicted in grades. As to validation, teachers administers test, however, the
results of the tests surely depends on the level of mastery of the pupils and students as the teacher
illustrates a lesson, discusses a point or clarifying questions raised in class. If the teacher is
creative enough, he/she could harness the best potentials of students to sufficiently engaged
themselves at their level, discussions that exhibited the six elements of Bloom’s taxonomy
however, highlighting the Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) of the students or pupils.

Sadly, most classroom teachers do not necessarily engage students to probing questions and
activities that encourages the use of HOTS in classroom lesson deliberations and discussions,
ergo, student’s capacity and capability on engaging on tasks that requires HOTS is adversely
jeopardized. Lessons too, are made to be overly simplified in the light of student’s assessed level
of intelligence without the benefit of an established benchmark as commonly agreed by the
teacher and the students themselves. Sometimes, teachers established the standards without prior
consultation with the pupils and students or worse, teachers succumb to the whims and prior
hesitancies of pupils or students to establish higher set of standards.

In this, the use of the TOS is much required prior to the construction of any teacher-made test. As
the teacher is done teaching specific lessons at the pace realistically acceptable to the pupils and
students, he/she needs to established the benchmark using the Table of Specification in order for
him/her to identify how many items substantially represents the lesson discussed or in what
manner will the placement of test items be. Absence of a concrete and valid TOS, test
construction will be disastrous. This usually happens in the tertiary level education wherein
instructors usually design tests that are not based on anything similar to a TOS and much more,
instructors, upon finishing the conduct of the tests in the classroom, failed to validate their tests
because they have not undertaken an activity called, ‘item analysis’. As the teacher teach the
essential learning requirement of the curriculum, it is prudent that these assumptions always have
to be etched validly in a TOS for test construction to be effective and valid.

In the aspect of to, “incorporate all subject area objectives into the local curriculum
throughout the year including, but not limited to, the objectives of the tests to be
administered”, 44% of the respondents revealed that they considered it “appropriate and
ethical” because normally, the classroom teacher implements subject areas previously identified
in the curriculum handed down by the Department of Education at the classroom level and
usually too, objectives of tests are patterned to the set objectives of the curriculum. Meanwhile,
41% of the respondents revealed that it is “somewhat appropriate and ethical”, providing the
impetus that there are a good number of classroom teachers that does not adopts the same
objectives for the subject areas in the curriculum with the objectives of the tests. This assumption
is such that because teachers are not familiar with the use of the TOS, they ended up at a loss as
to what will be the established objectives of the tests which resulted to the practice of objective
setting of tests that is totally different from the objectives set in the standard curriculum, at the
classroom level.

At the school level, this will be ironed out since master teachers will tend to bring to the attention
of the teacher concerned discrepancies in the objectives set in the curriculum and the tests.

In most cases too, at the classroom level the objectives of the tests to be administered at always
safely ‘pegged’ at validating or evaluating mastery of competencies by the pupils and the
students per lesson covered. A quick review perhaps of the tests and TOS will probably reveal a
standardized objective which has been copied from test to the other over the years.

82% of the respondents responded that they considered it “appropriate and ethical” to conduct
review on skills, strategies and concepts previously taught to class. This is common among all
strata of education in the Philippines, and even in the tertiary level of education, professors and
instructors oftentimes, conduct review classes prior to any tests to be administered. This is not be
construed that the review will be for the tests in itself but to evaluate the level of mastery of
students and pupils of the concepts, lessons, and skills being taught.

In this, it is acceptable to administer short quiz prior to a new lesson to set the tone of the class
however, the coverage of the lesson should most likely be about the previously taught lesson or
part of the syllabus. It is unwise for teachers to give quizzes to the class without sufficiently
covering the areas of the tests per subject area. Say for instance, a lesson in Biology I which
covers lessons previously discussed in class and sufficiently covered by the students and teachers
in terms of classroom activity will only be the coverage of the tests to be administered and not
something that will still have to be discussed in class. Otherwise, it is allowable if the teacher has
assigned activity, readings, assignment or takes home projects and the teacher wanted to know as
part of the established objective if the students or pupils have studied, then a test may be
administered but this should be practice sparingly.

The review of skills, strategies and concepts is limited to the lessons given to class prior to every
new lesson to be introduced. In this, it is the primary concern of the classroom teacher to provide
such review in light of the tests to be administered. But the review of the lessons should not also
be to ensure that the ones being reviewed will also be the coverage of the tests to be constructed.
Some practices among classroom teachers in all educational system tend to justify the giving of
pointers as coverage of the tests and the review to be conducted will not anymore be about skills,
strategies and concepts but on the specific pointers provided to the students, apparently to ensure
that a higher percentage of students will pass the tests to be administered. This can be widely
observed in some teacher-made tests or in some distinct case, prior to the NAT examination to
improve the MPS level of a given school as required by the district or the division.

In the category, “teach and review test-taking and familiarization skills that include an
understanding of test characteristics independent of the subject matter being tested”, 63.9% if
the respondents answered that they sees it as ‘appropriate and ethical’ over to 29.5% of the
respondents who commented that they considered it as “somewhat appropriate and ethical”. This
responses best explains the behavior of classroom teachers who reviews how properly to answer
test questions after checking the test papers of pupils and students. At some point in the
researcher’s educational experience, some classroom teachers even initiated sort of ‘review’ on
how students and pupils should answer each questions and to stress the relevance of reading
instructions in the tests questionnaires.

This shows the picture that in the Philippine educational sector, classroom teachers exert efforts
to promote self-learning as evidenced by the many review of answers usually after the tests has
been given, especially on formative tests. Classroom teachers are more oriented towards ensuring
that students and pupils are made to understand that their answers are taken into account and that
they were taught how to correct it in futures tests that have similar mechanics or types, not
coverage.

The researcher opined that in the Philippine setting, the manner review of answers are done by
classroom teachers not in a way to humiliate students and pupils who performed less, but to
encourage them to see the positive side of tests and that is in the manner that individual
improvements and self-study is key to passing the tests. In this kind of review, usually classroom
teachers teach students and pupils how best to arrive at answers in complex mathematical
equations or problem solving; how best to approach analysis in sentence construction and how to
answer English coverage of the tests. This activity, however, if wrongly administered will create
an impression that students are being ‘coach’. But, the real intention is to provide for an
immediate corrective mechanism to verify answers made by students and pupils in a given test.

In the category of “Use any test preparation documents and materials prepared by the test-
maker and the Office of the Schools Division Superintendent”, 42.6% of the respondents
answered that it is ‘appropriate and ethical’. Only 9.8% of the respondents answered that is
rather ‘inappropriate and unethical’.
In this category, it is understood that in classroom teachers are allowed to fill-up attached
documents prepared by the Department of Education’s Center for Testing for information
purposes. Because these materials are not review materials, these can not be use for review of
tests to be administered.

Usually, attached test preparation documents include a shopping list of documents sent out from
the Department of Education Central Office to the Division, District and to the School level.
These documents and materials are usually filled up by teacher-proctors as well as the testing
supervisors. 34.4% of the respondents, moreover, are saying that these practice among classroom
teachers are ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’. In the kind of response that they have shown,
there is a good number of classroom teachers who are not fully convinced of the ethical
dimension of using tests preparation materials as prepared by the agency tasked to construct tests
to be administered. This is explainable in the light of a strict government crackdown on
examination leakage brought about by unscrupulous teachers and review centers as evidenced in
the leak of the Nursing Board Examinations which has affected nursing professionals, both
passers and flankers as they were asked to re-take certain tests items in the standardized Nursing
Licensure Examinations.

These 34.4% of the respondents are extra-cautious of the use of the tests preparation documents
and materials fearing that using any part of the tests preparation documents and materials will be
tantamount to stealing and illegal use of tests materials. The researcher stressed that these
documents and materials are not the tests questionnaires and answer keys, however, attached
documents or special instructions prepared by the test-maker.

In “Read and discuss the tests administration manual with colleagues”, 62.2% of the
respondents answered that it is ‘appropriate and ethical”. This is in the light that usually, the
Division’s or the District’s designated test officer conducts tests administration briefings among
classroom teachers and in these briefings, tests administration manuals are openly discussed. It is
also in these meetings that the Department of Education will engage classroom teachers to make
use of the issued Test Administration Guidelines which covers usually, the kind of tests to be
administered, how do the tests are to be administered and the ethical dimensions of tests.

The common practice in the Philippines is that, classroom teachers are called to a meeting by the
principal to be brief as to the important aspects of tests preparation and eventually, in its
administration. In these meetings or briefings, guidelines for tests administrations issued by the
Department of Education Central Office are presented. The Manual has to be made available to
classroom teachers during these meetings and briefings.

In the meetings done by the Department of Education regarding the mechanics of the test to be
administered, the District and also, the Division office calls for a meeting with the Principals and
the designated testing officer, for the detailed deliberations on the tests administration manual, to
ensure that the manual has been widely subscribed and that classroom teachers are well informed
of the tests administration manual.
In “Schedule and provide the appropriate amount of time needed for the assessment”. 78.68%
of the respondents said that this is ‘appropriate and ethical’ as compared to only 14.75% of the
respondents who said that it is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’.

This is so because in the Philippine educational setting, any examination or tests, whether
teacher-made or standardized, the school administrators in the school level shall arrange the
opportune schedule for the tests and to provide considerable amount of time needed for the
preparations prior to any tests to be administered.

Usually too, the Department of Education releases Department Orders or Memoranda to set the
time and schedule of standardized tests in the basic education system, like in the administration
of the National Achievement Tests (NAT) and the National Career Assessment Examinations
(NCAE).

The researcher believes that the scheduling and the provision of appropriate amount of time in
the classroom by the teacher is within the bounds of ethical standards that has been widely
observed among Filipino teachers. It is in this context that teaches usually consults the principals
on the dates and the time allocation for tests, especially on summative tests which are usually
departmentalized. In the Philippine tertiary level education, the widely practiced scheduling of
tests and examinations are departmentalized.

With this in view, Filipino students are well-attuned to their preparations of the coverage of the
tests or the examinations to be administered. It will become unethical, if the schedule is so
disadvantageous to the students and pupils taking the examinations. The schedule becomes
disadvantageous in instances when original schedules of tests are forgone for reasons within the
control of the classroom teacher and reset on days that are considered to be heavily-loaded with
previously and originally scheduled examinations. This practice is widely seen among colleges
and universities in the Philippines.

In “take appropriate security precautions before, during and after administration of the tests”,
80.32% of the respondents answered that they considered it ‘appropriate and ethical’ and 13.11%
of the respondents said that it is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’ to secure tests materials
prior, during and after the administration of tests, whether teacher-made or standardized tests.

Since the widely practice tests administration especially in summative tests in the Philippine
educational system is departmentalized, the onus of the responsibilities of securing the tests
questions prior, during and after the administration of the tests rests entirely on the staff or staffs
assigned in the reproduction of tests materials. Because in the Philippine setting, summative tests
construction are being contributed by members of the given department where the course falls
within one specific semester or academic year, encoding and reproduction is handled by either
the Department Secretary or the support staff at the Department Chairperson’s Office.

It is vitally important that the security details of the tests questions will not have to be limited to
physically securing the tests questions prior and during, and answer keys after the administration
of the tests. It has to include securing the computer that has been used for encoding the tests
questions as well as the reproduction machines like photocopying machines, resograph
machines, mimeographing machines and others that are being used to reproduce tests questions.
Some, in the Philippines, photocopying business establishments retains copies of tests materials
unbeknownst to the classroom teacher. This unscrupulous act among very enterprising
businessmen has been the sources of examination leaks to students and this are sold usually
expensive and usually too, students are much more willing to procure such copies prior to taking
the tests or examinations.

In the administration of national standardized achievement tests in the Philippine basic education
sector, the security component is stringently observed. however, there are instances that test
materials are intentionally retained in the division or district offices for future uses (like in
review classes to students and pupils, believing that in the following year, the test questions are
not the same). In this context, the practice becomes unethical and inappropriate however,
classroom teachers have no direct information as this are done in district and division offices.
The opportunity to retain copies of the tests materials remains high primarily because the
distribution of tests materials are done through a contracted courier, that delivers test materials
(usually, sealed) to division offices and after the administration of the tests, pick up the answer
keys and the test materials (usually, again, sealed). Because these are sealed, the courier will not
be able to determine how many tests materials as well as answer keys are in one delivery and in
one picking. These retained copies usually end up to be use in the review of pupils and students
using the previously administered tests.

“Include all eligible students in the assessment”, is an important decision to be made by the
classroom teacher prior to the administration of standardized testing in schools, like in the case
of the NAT or NCAE. Normally in the Philippines, the administration of national standardized
tests covers all students and pupils, and their eligibility requirement is that they are presently
enrolled in a school year, in a given school. The non-inclusion of the administration of these tests
happen whenever a pupil or student may be absent in a given academic period which is also the
coverage of the NAT since a certain percentage of the grade in a given academic period is also
one of the requirements of the NAT and the results of the NAT is computed and added to the final
grade of the pupil or student in a given academic period in a academic year.

67.21% of the respondents answered that the inclusion of all eligible students in the assessment
prior to any tests is ‘appropriate and ethical’; while 22.95% of them answered that it is
‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’. There are only four (4) respondents or 6.55% of them who
considered it ‘inappropriate and unethical’.

Usually too, in the Philippine practice, it has to be stressed that non-inclusion of students and
pupils in assessments prior to the administration of tests is tantamount of depriving them the
right to education, thus, teachers and test directors usually allows students to take the
examination especially, standardized national tests even if the students and pupils have not
considerably attended the specific coverage of the academic period as well as gained mastery in
the basic skills to be covered in the tests. Because assessments are made by the classroom
teachers alone, the practice is usually, to allow all students and pupils to take the tests regardless
of the result of the assessments done, if there are any.

In “actively proctor students during tests, keeping them focused and on task”, 54.01% of the
respondents considered it “appropriate and ethical” while 24.59% of them also considered it
“somewhat appropriate and ethical”. In the Philippine educational system, the practice of active
proctoring is commonly observed wherein classroom teachers are asked to proctor examinations
like the NAT and the NCAE to other schools within the district in which they are also presently
serving. In these cases, teachers acting as proctor are oriented to assists students to stay focus on
the examinations being administered. In some instances, teacher-proctors especially during
standardized tests are unreasonably strict to the detriment of the comfort of the students and
pupils taking the examinations, say for example, the pupil and students taking a 1 and half hour
examination are not allowed to go to the rest room without the presence of the proctor or other
examination assistant. There are instances that these practices are jeopardizing student’s and
pupil’s chances of passing the examination being administered because they are inside a very
‘uncomfortable’, ‘pressure’ and ‘unfriendly’ testing environment wherein they are asked to go to
the rest room prior and after the tests are being administered.

Proctoring in the Philippine educational system is too much for the students and the pupils taking
the examination for the reason that teacher-proctor are oftentimes nose around on students and
pupils during the examination, to the point of unreasonably checking on suspecting students and
pupils whom they usually accused of plagiarism. As common among students and pupils taking
examinations, the perennial problem of copying can not be avoided but this has to be undertaken
in the context that it will not interfere student’s right to take the examinations and most
importantly, it will not interfere with the other students taking the examination in the same room.
Although plagiarism is not tolerated in the Philippine educational system, some teacher-proctor
act as accomplices to copying if they allow students and pupils sharing answers in the hope that
by doing so, the MPS of the given school and district will improve from the previous year.

In this case too, teacher-proctors are prone to ‘coach’ or ‘especially help’ students taking the
tests, again, to help improve the school’s MPS. Sometimes, the practice is to allow the intelligent
student or pupil to share his/her answers to the other students in order to increase the probability
of passing the examination being administered. This is the same reason why there are 14.75% of
the respondents who commented that this is ‘inappropriate and unethical’.

In “seek clarification on issues and questions from the administrative team responsible for
ethical and appropriate practices”, there are 59.01% of the respondents who said that this is
‘appropriate and ethical’ and another 24.59% of them who said that this is ‘somewhat appropriate
and ethical’. Strictly speaking, in the administration of tests in the Philippine educational system,
from basic education to tertiary levels of educational ladder, there are no administrative teams
created to be responsible for ethical and appropriate practices in the administration of the tests.
What usually happens is that the Department of Education designates testing director who are
usually based in either district or division offices and these designated officials are the ones who
give briefing to teacher-proctor and those who will administer national standardized tests in the
school level.

These designated personnel are task squarely on the proper procedure of administering the tests,
the safekeeping of the test materials and answer keys as well as arranging for the briefing of
proctors and usually, they have no grasps on ethical and proprietary dimension of tests
construction as well as administration. Usually, the common practice is that clarification on
issues and logistical arrangements set by the central office of the Department of Education and
this is through a pre-testing conference of all testing directors in the district and division or
principals. There are no actual consultations relative to ethical and appropriate practices on the
examination day itself and if there are any, it will be deliberated in the succeeding days pursuant
to the written report to the district or the division office. With it, the process becomes tedious and
highly bureaucratic. If there are ethical violations of tests administration procedures by teacher-
proctors or students/pupils, normally, it will be resolve until after the examination is done and
administered and upon filing of a formal complaint to the offices designated to receive such
complaints, however, it will take some time for it to be resolved and answered.

In “avoid any action that would permit or encourage individuals or groups of students to
receive scores that misrepresent their actual level of knowledge and skill”, there are 51.66% of
the respondents who said that it is ‘appropriate and ethical’ while 31.14% of the respondents said
that it is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’.

This is the ideal practice that should happen in any administration of tests in the Philippines
however, some teacher-proctor tend to ‘assist’ student/pupil taking the examination. Sometime
way back in early 1990’s, in the advent of NCEE, there were many secondary school graduates
who failed miserably in the NCEE however, have performed better when they have actually
enrolled in their chosen courses and there are also those who excelled and garnered high results
in the NCEE and yet, have not been performing beyond par when it comes to their chosen field.
This practice of ‘assisting’ students in the examination period contributes to the downgrade
competencies of the students after graduation in the basic education. Here, the classic evidence is
in the students who pass the achievement tests and yet, have no mastery of basic skills on
English, Math and Science and the moment they enrolled in college or university,
college/university instructors will have a hard time teaching expert knowledge because they are
pre-occupied with the recoiling of basic, factual and elementary competencies of students
entering their courses.

Although the results of the study revealed that most of the respondents considered it ‘appropriate
and ethical’, 13.11% of them considered it ‘inappropriate and unethical’ primarily because as has
been commonly observed, teachers who aimed for a higher MPS would exert effort to improve it,
whether ethical or through unethical means. These respondents are the ones who easily can exert
special ‘assistance’ to students taking the examination who are obviously in distress and wanting
also to improve the MPS level of a certain school or district, then they will willingly provide
actions that will encourage to share answers and because of this, results of the examination does
not necessarily representative of the actual level of knowledge and skills of students and pupils.

It is because of this that the result can be gleaned in the performance of college or university
students in the Philippines. Many, as commonly observed, enrolled in their freshman in a
baccalaureate degree without having the required mastery and competencies to hurdle the
academic rigors required, and yet, these graduates have passed the nationalized standardized tests
being administered in their basic education. This area are among the areas of test administration
in the Philippines that needs to be sufficiently improve to present a comprehensive results of tests
that are representative of the acquired mastery and competencies in a given tested subject or area.

Before the tests are being administered to students and pupils, the determination of the ethical
standards of the use of test preparation materials is of paramount consideration to all classroom
teachers and proctors.

In the “use any tests preparation material that promises to raise scores on a particular test by
targeting skills or knowledge from specific test items, and does not increase student’s general
knowledge and skills. Materials which target the general skills tested may be appropriate if
they reflect school or district priorities and best practices” 42.62% of the respondents
considered it ‘appropriate and ethical’ while another 26.22% of them suggested that it is
‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’. The misconception of the uses of test materials to improve
the MPS of a given school in the form of review materials are commonly observed in many in
the basic education system and even in many professional board/licensure examinations being
conducted in the Philippines. As can be observed, many reviewers or review materials are taken
directly or indirectly from test materials previously being administered.

These respondents who considered this activity as ethical and appropriate are those who are more
focused on the improvement of the school’s MPS rather than in the actual learning competencies
and mastery of the students and pupils taking the achievement or assessment tests.

Unfortunately still, many school heads and district officials are more oriented towards improving
the MPS of the school as this affected their management of instruction as well as supervisory
capabilities in the light of the actual competencies and mastery of skills. In order to better
address a low MPS, these teachers are bent on conducting review classes for NAT examinations
using previously administered tests materials.

Only 22.95% of the respondents who commented that this is ‘inappropriate and unethical’ in
whatever means and however it is being intentionally used in the classroom. As effective
teachers, the review, if there should be any, shall substantially cover skills and methodologies to
improve the competencies and skills of the pupils and students, anyway, the results of the tests to
be administered will be reflective of the actual learning outcome being gained in the class.

Because perhaps on too many task a given classroom teacher handles on a day to day basis, they
would resort to review classes using test materials that targets skills and knowledge on specific
test items on days nearing the examination dates. Again, because this do not focus on the
competencies and mastery of skills, students may have potentially high raw test scores and
collectively, the school may have a high MPS score across the board but the future educational
plans of the students and pupils are in serious jeopardy, primarily because they were made to
believe that they are able to hurdle a standardized national achievement tests but lacking
miserably on required competencies and mastery of skills and knowledge.

On ‘limit curriculum and instruction only to those skills, strategies and concepts included on
the tests’, there are only 31.14% of the respondents who considered this as ‘inappropriate and
unethical’ while 27.86% of them considered it as ‘appropriate and ethical’. In the Philippine
context of ethical standards in tests administration, everything that is good for the student and the
school is deemed ethical and practical much more appropriate even if it limits instruction on
those skills and concepts that are covered in the tests. This can be gleaned in most practices
among classroom teachers who changes gears in terms of discussion and lesson coverage on
those that are vitally covered in the given tests.

There are may classroom teachers who are conducting focused-lectures and lesson deliberations
that has been established emphasis in the national achievement tests (NAT) to benefit their
classroom of potentially high passing raw scores in the examination and thereby increasing the
MPS level of their schools.
On the positive note, 36.06% of the respondents are considering this as ‘somewhat appropriate
and ethical’ and in the light of the different strategies to improve the ratings of students in the
national achievement tests, many of them would tend to limit discussion and instruction on those
areas that are covered in the tests. They would tend to some extent especially if their school
encourages them to do so. This group of classroom teachers should be the focus of a
strengthened ethical standards campaign to ensure that the instruction and curriculum are created
and implemented in the classroom level to ensure mastery of skills and concepts and
competencies among students and pupils, not as a leverage towards an increase MPS for the
school.

Another aspect is in the category that “limit review to only those areas on which student
performance was low on previous tests”, a combined percentage of the respondents considered
it as ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’ to ‘appropriate and ethical’.

32.78% of the respondents considered this as ‘inappropriate and unethical’. It is understandable

in this light because as commonly practiced in many in the Philippine educational system,
classroom teachers limit review only on those that needs improvement on the part of the students
and pupils achievement tests results or in many formative or summative examinations. Usually
too, coverage of the examinations especially teacher-made tests are limited only on those that
classroom teachers considered to be needing improvement or those areas that students and pupils
are ‘poor’ and needs immediate improvement.

Also, as commonly practiced in the Philippines, parents would tend to also guide study time and
review on those areas that needs improvement and especially based on low performance of
previous examinations among their children. In this, the orientation of parents and the classroom
teachers are selectively focused on areas that they think will need more attention because their
children or students have not been performing at par during the past examinations.

This is so because Filipino study habits and culture tends to point out on the ‘reactive’ attitude
rather on the ‘proactive’ study attitude as expressed among highly advanced nations around the
world. Review and study strategies are considerably focused on those areas that they feel weak
as a result of a previous tests or examination, but have not mastered other areas that could have a
direct or indirect relationship with an examination. For example, students who failed on problem
solving tests in mathematics would tend to review on how to arrive at strategies and
methodologies that will ultimately improve their problem solving skills however, have not also
studied reading comprehension in English area which could have been useful in answering
problem solving questions in mathematics.

In “cram test material just before the tests are given”, 44.26% of the respondents considered
this as ‘inappropriate and unethical’ and 24.59 % of the respondents answered that this is
‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’ while only 16.39% of them who considered this as
‘appropriate and ethical’.

One laudable attribute of classroom teachers in the Philippine educational system is on being
prepared before any tests or achievement examinations. Our being prepared has been attributed
to our desire to improve our present accomplishment and also due to our clamor to excel in
whatever endeavors that we pursue. This best explains why many classroom teachers who are
tasked in the administration of any tests, preferred to go to the testing areas early on, mostly
around two (2) hours prior to the start of the examination, bringing the test materials, and has
already been briefed accordingly.

This aspect is also can be seen in the institutionalization of review classes in many colleges and
universities that are offering board courses like education, accountancy, agriculture, architecture
and engineering, nursing and physical therapy as well as in medicine and law. In most cases,
colleges and universities are conducting review classes on board or bar examinations and this are
usually attended by students of the same college or university and is conducted by in-house
reviewers.

This practice prohibits the cramming of test materials as students and pupils are adequately given
sufficient time to be adjusted with the manner of taking the tests as well as on the mechanism of
taking the tests as provided in the review classes conducted.

In “train students for testing using locally developed versions of national norm-referenced
tests”, 44.26% of the respondents considered this ‘appropriate and ethical’ while another 24.59%
of them said that it is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’ to do this.

Mostly, due to the ingenuity of Filipino reviewers, they devised locally-made tests materials
patterned after the national standardized tests being administered for use exclusively in the
review of students. This is evidenced by the proliferation of review materials available in many
bookstores across the country, purportedly selling review tips and materials that ‘sound like the
real’ test material use in the examination.

Because of this response, the sales of locally-made versions of review materials patterned from
standardized tests are not condemned as unethical and inappropriate, in fact, many colleges and
universities offering reviews are openly accessing these review materials to ensure that their
students hurdle the national standardized tests.

Only 22.95% of the respondents considered this as ‘inappropriate and unethical’.

In the light of the fast and advanced construction of test items in a given test or examination,
most classroom teachers using locally-made versions of these tests opined that what they are
using are appropriate and ethical since this are not actual or real tests questions that will come
out during the tests, however, the mere use of locally-made versions of national norm-referenced
tests are unethical in the first place. Also, usually, the discussion will falls under economic
dimensions of the use of the review materials since locally-made test materials used in the
review are much affordable than approved review materials commonly used and is widely
available.

54.09% of the respondents considered “revealing all or any part of secure copyrighted tests to
students, in any manner, oral or written, prior to test administration” as ‘inappropriate and
unethical’. This is so because administration of tests in all levels of educational system in the
Philippines is replete with all the security mechanism to eliminate the threats of plagiarism or
leaks in the examinations. Usually, because the security mechanism for test materials to be used
in the examination is very tight, the leaks happened in the review centers as what has happened
in the Nursing examination leaks.
This is widely practiced in the Philippines and the security mechanism is very fool-proof as
students and pupils taking the examination will have the chance to see the test materials just
minutes prior to taking the examination and during this time, the examination time has officially
started.

In many board and licensure examinations, the tests materials are distributed to those who are
taking the test inside the testing venue and the proctor then announced that the tests materials can
now be viewed and read through, but at this time, again, the examination has officially started
already.

“Copy or otherwise reproduce all or any part of secure or copyrighted tests” are very important
aspects of the study of ethical standards in test construction and administration. In this category,
Filipino classroom teachers are in the majority in saying that this is ‘inappropriate and unethical’.

In this, only 19.67% of the respondents commented that this is ‘appropriate and ethical’. On the
level of the personal motives of classroom teachers, they are usually not daring enough to
reproduce all or any part of secure or copyrighted tests, however, there are potential sources of
these reproduction and usually, this will not necessarily involved classroom teachers themselves,
as in the Philippines experience, the test materials are not in the sole safeguard and property of
the classroom teachers but to the sub-contracted couriers, the designated testing director in the
division, the designated testing director in the district office and then, the school head or
principal before it reaches the hands of the classroom teacher, although, usually, as commonly
observed among those involved in the administration of tests in the Philippines, these testing
materials are sealed when it arrives in the testing venues.

One notable experience shared by classroom teachers administering standardized tests in the
basic education sector commented that they usually do not reproduce test materials but retain one
or two copies of the test material for use in the review classes to be undertaken by the school or
district. The choice of retaining copies of the test materials is not within the purview of the
classroom teachers anymore since the pick-up of test materials and answer sheets are done by the
courier in the district or division offices.

In “review or provide test question answers to students”, 44.26% of the respondents commented
that this is ‘inappropriate and unethical’ while 32.78% of them also considered this as
‘appropriate and ethical’ and only 19.67% of them commented that this is ‘somewhat appropriate
and ethical”.

These responses are evidence of circumstances that surrounds the case at hand. It is considered
inappropriate and unethical if the answer keys to the specific test or examination are provided to
students, however, it can also be considered appropriate or ethical if the classroom teacher is
only reviewing what will come out in the examination by using actual test questions. Depending
on the gravity of the act, the classroom teacher will decide whether such act is inappropriate or
ethical. These responses are driven by the present environment wherein schools that have low
MPS in the previous NAT are asked to undertake measures to improve their MPS in the coming
tests and because they have accessed to retained test materials, this will be used as a review test
material for the NAT.
72.13% of the respondents who says that they considered possessing unauthorized copies of
national tests as ‘inappropriate and unethical’ compared to only 8.19% who says that it is
‘appropriate and ethical’.

These responses points to the manner Filipino teachers considered that possessing unauthorized
copies of national tests including tests questions is unethical however, perhaps, the 8.19% of
them would consider it as ethical if it has been provided to them by the right office and the right
person in the district or division office. It has been of common knowledge that in the Philippines,
teachers made use of previously administered tests materials for review purposes of future tests.
Possessions of these materials without prior approval and tacit knowledge of the right office and
the right people is deemed illegal and unethical, but whenever a supervisor obtains tests
materials for use in the review of specific schools and course through the school’s designated
testing director or the principal, then it will be appropriate.

During the administration of the tests, 40.98% of the respondents commented that reading any
parts of the tests to students except where indicated in the directions is ‘appropriate and ethical’
while 34.42% of them also considered it ‘inappropriate and unethical’, however there are 16.39%
of them who viewed it as ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’, which can easily be inferred as
nearer to the majority of the respondents claiming that it is appropriate and ethical.

These responses can be best explained in the behavior and responses of the respondents on the
category that teachers actively proctor students during tests, keeping them focused and on task
and by this, they would also mean that undertaking some special reading of any parts of the tests
is ethical and appropriate. This can also be explained by the lingering cultural construct among
Filipino teachers that whenever their students are taking tests or participating in competitions
that will bring potential honors or disgrace to their schools, they will go out of their way to
ensure that their students are able to answer well and within all means to ensure success which
oftentimes results to this practice, albeit unethical.
In the Philippines, the value of saving face at the onset of any academic tests or undertaking
somehow would have something to play and these observations are the interplay of deep
commitment towards ensuring the reputation of the school under a specific stewardship will not
be sullied by poor results in tests or examinations, ergo, teachers will resort to violating ethical
standards by undertaking such illegal activities during the administrations of the tests.

Also, one of the factors that classroom teachers will eventually be asked to read some parts of the
tests to students except where indicated in the directions is on the manner directions are also
constructed. In most cases, especially on teacher-made tests, instructions and directions are not
clearly manifested which confuses students taking the tests thus, students will resort to asking for
some explanations as to the directions or instructions before proceeding to answer all the
questions. Some, after a review of the actual tests questions of standardized tests questions for
the National Achievement Tests, some directions and instructions are confusing and ill-planned
and misplaced within the tests material. With this, students would have to ask the proctor or the
teachers themselves to read to them some parts of the tests that are not clear.

In the category “define or pronounce words used in the test”, the respondents have varied
responses which is observable in many classroom tests administrations. 42.62% of the
respondents said that it is ‘inappropriate and unethical’ while 32.78% of them said that it is
‘appropriate and ethical’, and 36.06% commented that it is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’.
In this, although there are a good percentage of the respondents who considered it inappropriate
and unethical, there are also however, a substantial percentage of them who considered it
somewhat to outright appropriate and ethical. This can be observe, again, in the manner
classroom teachers wanting an improved results of the tests by undertaking ‘special help’ to
students who are in distress while taking the examination.

Usually, as observed in many in the Philippine public basic education sectors that are now being
under intense scrutiny because of low performance in the NAT and in the NCAE, teachers would
oftentimes, resort to ‘clarify’ words used in the tests to ensure a high percentage of passing
among those taking the tests. This is so because as widely being experienced by tertiary level
instructors and professors, those who usually are able to hurdle the NAT in both elementary and
secondary levels does not have sufficient mastery on the areas being tested like English, Math
and Science thus, resulting to protracted discussions or deliberations on basic knowledge base
acquisitions or master of certain skills rather than proceeding on expert knowledge discussions in
classrooms and this also explains the proliferation of non-creditable refresher or tutorial classes
to allow students to hurdle the rigorous demands of tertiary education and incredibly, many
students have been under these subjects.

On the category, ‘make comments of any kind during the tests, including remarks about quality
or quantity of student work, unless specifically called for in the administration manual’, 57.37%
of the respondents considered it ‘inappropriate and unethical’ while 21.31% of them considered
it ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’. Only 14.75% of the respondents commented that this is
‘appropriate and ethical’. There are 4.91% who are ‘undecided or confused’ in this category.

As commonly practiced in the Philippines, during the administrations of tests, teachers and
proctors are observing students taking the tests at a distance and normally too, there are no
distractions as a result of this category. Mostly, the venue of examinations or tests are made to be
conducive for the administration of tests and teachers are prohibited from talking aloud or to
make comments regarding the tests as to its procedures, the manner to be administered and the
way students answered. Due to this prohibition, the respondent’s answers to this category best
represent the real situation during the administration of tests.

In ‘give “special help” of any kind to students taking the tests’, 63.93% of the respondents
commented that this is inappropriate and unethical and only 13.11% of them considered this
appropriate and ethical while 19.67% of them considered it ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’.

These responses do not sufficiently describe the prevailing practice among teachers who are in
need of a better MPS in the batch of students taking any standardized tests in the Philippines.
Although the responses of the majority of the respondents pointed to its perception that this is
unethical and inappropriate, but in the event that their schools experiences low MPS and that
they need to abruptly improve it in the next NAT examination, then these special help will be put
into discreet practice. Although this has to be verified but I believed that there a good number of
Filipino teachers who extend ‘special help’ to students taking the tests to ensure high percentage
of passers from one specific school, though the respondents are not openly admitting it.
72.13% of the respondents considered it ‘inappropriate and unethical’ to suggest or coach
students to mark or change their answers in any way as compared to only 16.39% of them who
considered it ‘appropriate and ethical’.

In the Philippines, the administration of tests, whether teacher-made or standardized is a serious

business. Teachers or proctors do not coach students to change or mark their answers in any way
during the examinations. This extends to the practice in the administration of licensure
examinations in the Philippines and in these cases, proctors are too strict that they are already
sacrificing or jeopardizing the comforts of the students taking the tests.

It is however different when teachers ‘coach’ students to change wrong answers to ensure high
MPS among the takers of the examination and ‘coaching’ to answer correctly. These are two
different manners in which the end usually justifies the means. In this likely manner, students
taking the examinations will be ‘coach’ to answer correctly during the tests but not ‘coached’ to
change or alter wrong responses and this is widely observable in the Philippines.

I said this primarily because in most cases too, students who pass the NAT have difficulty in
undertaking the rudiments of the subjects they are believed to be performing beyond
expectations. Say, a student who garnered a high raw score on English because he/she was
‘coach’ to choose the correct answers will find it extremely difficult passing a similar
examination being administered in the guise of college or university admission tests.

This observation is considerably being widely done in the Philippines as can be gleaned from the
poor or below average performance of college or university freshmen in English, Mathematics or
Science in which in their secondary education, they have garnered high raw scores. As I have
argued, raw scores are not the sole determinant of academic performance and achievement,
although, among them.

In the category to ‘exclude eligible students from taking the tests’, an overwhelming 70.49% of
the respondents considered it ‘inappropriate and unethical’ while only 9.83% of them considered
it ‘appropriate and ethical’.

In the Philippines, prior to the administration of tests, a roster of eligible student takers are
provided by the school to the district and eventually, to the division to ensure that these students
can take the administered tests in their schools, and usually too, there were no instances that
students are barred from taking the tests even if they are eligible to take the tests.

This responses also best illustrates the amendments made on the administration of the
professional Civil Service Commission Licensure examination in which prior to its amendment,
only degree holders or graduates of a four-year degree course can be allowed to take the
professional licensure examination done by the CSC, however, just recently, this has been
amended to allow even non-graduates of a four-year degrees to take the tests, however, this has
its own limitations as this can not and will never be done in the administration of executive
career service examinations or the foreign service officers (FSO) examinations, which requires
specific courses and the examination takers should have obtained a university or college degree
to be able take the examination.
“To reproduce test documents for any purpose”, 42.62% of the respondents commented that this
is ‘inappropriate and unethical’ and 27.86% of them commented that this is ‘somewhat
appropriate and ethical’ while 22.95% of them also considered it ‘appropriate and ethical’.

As I have been arguing, the reproduction of tests documents may not be necessary as the
common practice in the Philippines is that the division or district offices will more or less, retain
copies of the tests materials for review purposes and many schools have been undertaking review
classes using these materials. In this practice, reproduction is not anymore the issue since a
wholesale edition of true test materials will be made available for use in the review of the
examinations to be administered.

After the test administration, an overwhelming 68.85% of the respondents considered

‘inappropriate and unethical’ to make inaccurate reports, unsubstantiated claims, inappropriate
interpretations or otherwise false and misleading statements about assessment results. Only a
meager 14.75% of them considered this as ‘appropriate and ethical’.

This is so because in the Philippines, teachers administering the standardized tests like the NAT
and the NCAE or in many board licensure examinations undertaken by the Professional
Regulatory Commission (PRC) are not allowed to interpret the answers or responses of students
pursuing the tests. In the case of the correction or interpretation of the NAT and the NCAE, it is
being undertaken by one office under the Department of Education and this is centralized so
teachers do not have accessed to these test materials and the answer sheets.
To ‘erase or change student answers’, 81.96% of the respondents viewed this as ‘inappropriate
and unethical’. In the Philippines, the teacher or proctors are not as daring as to erase or change
student answers since this will also cost them their job if caught.

In the Philippines too, the possession of tests materials and answer sheets in the proctor or
teacher do not usually lasts more than 24 hours after the administration of the tests and usually,
the collected answer sheets and tests materials are sealed for verification in the district or
division offices and eventually, for transport via courier to the Central Office for corrections.
Even in the transport of the tests materials and answer sheets are shrouded in secrecy and
teachers do not know when and where the tests materials or the answer sheets are to be picked up
by the courier and modalities of its transport.

CONCLUSIONS:

Out of the findings of the study, the researcher draws the following
conclusion:

1. In the area of the utilization and the proper evaluation of

implementable Table of Specifications (TOS) in the school level, it has
been observed that it is blatantly absent but there are areas of
improvement wherein the district supervisors can take an active role
through the constant guidance and consultation with the Schools
Division Superintendent as well as the principal;
2. Generally, the Filipino classroom teachers do adhere to time-honored
tradition and morals that are similar to ethical standards however,
 there is no existing Code of Ethical Standards that governs the
construction of tests as well as in its administration;
3. The Department of Education has not sufficiently encourage teachers
to conduct classes in major areas covered by standardized tests like
the NAT instead of conducting review classes using previously
administered tests materials;
4. Teachers in all educational levels observes ethical and appropriate
standards in the activities covering testing which includes, pre-testing,
during the tests and after the tests have been administered;
5. There is no Code of Ethical Standards for Tests Construction and Administration adopted
by the Department of Education and many colleges and universities that is similar to the
ones espoused by the Washington Education Research Association which has been central
in this undertaking;
6. The implications varies to the gravity of the ethical violations which oftentimes too, can
not be settled in judicial processes however, it have impacts on the future of the children
and pupils taking the tests and specifically, the implications includes the following:
a. Wrong assessment and evaluation of tests results (i.e., high percentage raw score
may not necessarily reflect mastery and competencies in the subject area or low
percentage raw score may not also necessarily reflect low mastery or
competencies);
b. Unpredictable and uncertain career paths are a result of wrong assessments done
by teachers who committed a mistake in constructing the tests because he/she do
not use a TOS and the grades become sole determinant of academic achievement
which until now has to be proven;
c. For other researchers, academics and instructors, that they may find exceptional
sources of information for future researches about Islamic education in the
Philippines;
d. Absence of ethical standards in tests construction and administration will give
unfortunately, rooms for misinterpretation and misrepresentation of tests results
which hampers the future prospects of students and pupils, thus resulting to
students pursuing mismatched careers;

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The researcher proposes the following recommendations:

1. Adoption of a Code of Ethical Standards in tests construction and administration by
the classroom teachers from the basic education to instructors in colleges and
universities;
2. Regular validation and evaluation of Tables of Specifications (TOS) in all classes
from basic education to tertiary level education, including in the graduate school
programs;
3. The Philippine Department of Education as well as the Commission on Higher
Education shall endeavor to conduct information caravans, campaigns and seminars
as well as fora to discuss ethical dimensions in tests construction and administration;
4. The Commission on Higher Education shall also include in the revised curriculum for
Teacher Education Programs in all Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) across the
 country, course like “Ethics in Education” particularly targeting on ethical standards
in tests construction and administration, outside the regularly offered, “Ethics in
Teaching Profession”. This course program shall have a 3 unit equivalent in the major
courses under the BEED and BSED baccalaureate programs;
5. Future researches pertaining to this area in education.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

I gratefully acknowledged the assistance extended by Dr. Maria Nancy Cadosales. I thanked the
students of the PhD Program in Educational Management and faculty of the Graduate School of
the La Salle University as well as Br. Narciso Erquiza, FSC, President, La Salle University, for
their support and inspiration. CHED Commissioner Luningning M. Umar for her support and
favorable endorsement. Also, Ms. Michelle Beracis-Cagape for the support and understanding.

References

(2001, August 11). Republic Act 9155 . Manila: Government of the Philippines.

(2001). Paper-and-Pencil Test Questions. In P. W. Airasian, Classroom Assessment

Concepts and Applications (p. 168). Boston: McGraw-Hill Publications.

Airasian, Peter W. (2001). Classroom Assessment Concepts and Applications, Fourth

Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill Publication.

Arcelo, A. A. (2003). In Pursuit of Continuingquality in Higher Education through

accreditation: The Philippine Experience. Paris: International Institute for
Educational Planning.

Arneson, R. (2007, September 16). A note on utilitarianism and consequentialism for

Philosophy 13.

(1990). Ethics . In M. Artigas, Introduction to Philosophy (p. 68). Manila: Sinag-Tala

Publishers, Inc.

Asaad, A. S., & Hailaya, W. M. (2004). In A. S. Asaad, & W. M. Hailaya, Measurement

and Evaluation, Concepts and Principles (p. 124). Manila: Rex BookStore.

Asaad, A. S., & Hailaya, W. M. (2004). Measurement and Evaluation, Concepts and
Principles. Manila: Rex Bookstore.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998, September 8). "Inside the Black Box: Raising
Standards through Classroom Assessment". Retrieved December 1, 2007, from Phi
Delta Kappan: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm

Boston, C. (2002, October 1). The Concept of Formative Assessment. Retrieved

December 2, 2007, from ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation College
Park MD: http://www.vtaide.com/png/ERIC/Formative-Assessment.htm

Cabreza, V. (2007, June 10). Whistleblowers in 2006 Nursing Test leak take new
exams. Philippine Daily Inquirer , p. 6.

Calderon, J. F., & Gonzales, E. C. (2007). Charateristics and Classifications of

Educational Measuring Instruments. In J. F. Calderon, & E. C. Gonzales,
Measurement and Evaluation (p. 21). Mandaluyong City: National Book Store.

Cena, E. (2007, January 16). 1.8 Million High School Students to take career exams.
Philippine Daily Inquirer , p. 9.

CMO 30 . (2004, September 13). Retrieved December 2, 2007, from Commission on

Higher Education: http://www.ched.gov.ph

Code of Ethics . (2007, April 24). Retrieved November 29, 2007, from Americna
Association of School Administrators Website:
http://www.aasa.org/about/content.cfm?ItemNumber=2157

Code of Ethics for Registered Teachers. (2007, November 29). Retrieved November
29, 2007, from A New Zealand Education Council WebSite:
http://www.teacherscouncil.govt.nz/ethics/code.stm

Code of Ethics for Teachers. (2007, November 28). Retrieved November 29, 2007,
from Association of American Educators Website: http://www.aaeteachers.org/code-
ethics.shtml

Code of Ethics for Testing. (2001, April 29). Retrieved November 30, 2007, from
North Carolina Public Schools:
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/testing/policies/testcode080100.
pdf

Code of Ethics of the Education Profession. (2005, July 12). Retrieved November 29,
2007, from National Education Association Website:
http://www.nea.org/aboutnea/code.html

Code of Professional Responsibilities in Educational Measurement . (1997, June 15).

Retrieved November 29, 2007, from National Association of Test Directors Website:
http://www.natd.org/Code_of_Professional_Responsibilities.html

De Jesus, E. C. (2003, August 25). DepEd Order 70. Revised Grading system for
Elementary and Secondary Schools . Quezon City: Department of Education.
DepEd Updates. (2007, December 16). Retrieved December 16, 2007, from
Department of Education:
http://www.deped.gov.ph/updates/updateslinks.asp?id=331

Education and Testing Program. (2006, December 08). Retrieved December 05,
2007, from DepEd Division of Island Garden City of Samal:
http://www.region11.deped.gov.ph/igacos/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf
=1&id=34

(1995). Philosophy of Philippine Education. In A. Elevazo, & R. Elevazo. Manila:

National Bookstore.

(1995). What Does the Score Tell you? In E. S. Gelleman, School Testing, What
Parents and Educators Need to Know (p. 117). Westport, Connecticut : Praeger
Publishers.

Gloria, R. T. (1996). The Development of Education, A National Report of the

Philippines. 45th Session of the International Conference on Education (p. 3).
Geneva, Switzerland: UNESCO Geneva.

Glossary . (2007, December 01). Retrieved December 01, 2007, from The NOLO Web
site: http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/2AC7A5A3-29CC-44C8-
ACCBC7DCB1F09395/alpha/B/

Harrington, P. (2007, December 1). Standard Tests Administration adn Testing Ethics
for Utah Educators. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from Utah State Office of
Education Website: http://schools.utah.gov

History of Best Interests. (2006, November 16). Retrieved December 01, 2007, from
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_interests

Hunter-Lowe, M. R. (2005, June 5). Ethics and Decision Making in Education.

Retrieved December 4, 2007, from Therories of Ethics in Education:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Ethics-and-Decision-Making-in-Education&id=857935

Implementing Rules and Regulation for RA 6713. (n.d.). Retrieved November 28,
2007, from Civil Service Commission: http://www.csc.gov.ph/RA6713b.html

Kagan, S. (1998). Normative Ethics. Boulder: Westview Press.

Keogh, B. K. (2003). Temperament in the Classroom, Understanding Individual

Differnces . Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.

Macapagal-Arroyo, G. (2001, April 23). Presidential Speeches. Retrieved December

2, 2007, from Office of the President of the Philippines Website:
http://www.opnet.ops.gov.ph/speech-2001april23a.htm

National Educational Testing and Research Center. (2007, December 5). Retrieved
December 5, 2007, from Department of Education:
http://www.deped.gov.ph/about_deped/organizationlinks.asp?id=16
(1992). Evaluation of Learning. In J. C. Palma, Curriculum Development System, A
Handbook for School Practitioners in Basic Education (p. 113). Mandaluyong City:
National Bookstore.

Peterson, M. (2006, November 20). Are persons mere containers for wellbeing?
Retrieved December 1, 2007, from Philisophy :
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/misc/moral_philosophy/papers/PetersonNOV20.pdf

Pimentel, A. (2006, August 18). Press Release . Retrieved December 01, 2007, from
Senate of the Philippines website :
http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2006/0818_pimentel1.asp

PNA. (2007, November 16). DepEd yo Focus on Schools with Low Master Scores.
Retrieved December 5, 2007, from Government of the Philippines Website:
http://www.gov.ph/news/?i=19385

Romero, R. C. (2005). Education for International Understanding in the Philippines:

Current Status and Future Challenges. Journal of Education for International
Understanding, Vol. 1 , 146.

Singh, Y. (2005). Instructional Technology in Education. New Delhi: A.P.H. Publishing

Corporation.

Teaching, N. Y. (2003, April 06). Code of Ethics for Educators . New York City, New
York, United States of America .

Testing and Assessment. (2007, June 14). Retrieved December 1, 2007, from
American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/science/fairtestcode.html

Williams, B. (1973). A Critique of Utilitarianism. In B. Williams, & J. Smart,

Utilitarianism: For and Against (p. 89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.