PSA has an obligation to clarify its literacy data

On May 1, a holiday, I noticed that the Department of Education (DepEd) was trending on X (formerly Twitter). I clicked to see what had sparked the discussion. One widely shared post featured an image of a striking news headline: “Almost 19 million junior, senior high graduates in 2024 can’t read — PSA.”

As someone formerly connected with DepEd, I was immediately puzzled. The numbers didn’t add up. The first batch of Senior High School (SHS) students under the K to 12 curriculum entered in 2016, and the total number of graduates in a given year is nowhere near 19 million. I looked up the article, and what I found was not just inaccurate reporting but a textbook case of statistical miscommunication.

Here’s what I surmise happened:

The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) released results on literacy from its 2024 Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media Survey (FLEMMS) on April 4. The survey, conducted every five years, measures the basic and functional literacy levels of Filipinos across a broad age range, not a specific graduating class.

According to the PSA, 70.8% of Filipinos aged 10 to 64 years old were functionally literate in 2024. Functional literacy here means the ability to read, write, compute, and comprehend. The remaining 29.2%, or approximately 24.8 million individuals, lacked one or more of these abilities.

On April 30, the Senate Committee on Basic Education held a hearing to examine the results. Committee chair Senator Sherwin Gatchalian underscored the alarming implication that many Filipinos pass through the basic education system without acquiring sufficient comprehension skills. His concerns were valid and framed within the urgent need for education reform.

But once the figures were divorced from context and reframed as a 2024 snapshot, the narrative took a different turn. The result was a familiar cycle: a dramatic but incorrect headline, viral posts, instant reactions, and diminished space for thoughtful analysis.

The claim that “almost 19 million graduates in 2024 can’t read” is false. The PSA made no such statement. DepEd data will show that the total annual JHS and SHS graduates number in the single-digit millions. The 18-19 million figure cited in the hearing reflects the overall difference in the number of functionally literate individuals under the old and new definitions — across the entire 10-64 age population. This drop is due primarily to the stricter criteria adopted in 2024, which removed automatic inclusion based on schooling level and required demonstrated comprehension. While the number likely includes high school or junior high school graduates, it also includes many who did not complete secondary education. That’s a serious issue — but not the one the headline claimed.

Unfortunately, this error was amplified through a now-familiar pattern: a provocative soundbite, a misleading headline, and quick commentary from high-profile figures.

The real story is more nuanced, and arguably more important.

The 2024 FLEMMS adopted a stricter and more internationally aligned definition of functional literacy. In prior surveys, someone could be deemed functionally literate if they could read, write, and compute, or simply had completed JHS. In 2024, that automatic qualification was removed. Respondents had to demonstrate comprehension.

This is a welcome development. It offers a clearer picture of actual skills. But it also means that comparisons to previous FLEMMS rounds are not valid. The decline in functional literacy from over 90% in 2019 to just over 70% in 2024 reflects a change in measurement, not a collapse in capability.

That critical detail, however, was missing in much of the media reporting and online discourse.

Even the Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM2) may have oversimplified the data. In a post-hearing press release titled “Around 18M Filipinos Finished High School Despite Being Functionally Illiterate,” EDCOM2 stated that the 18 million figure represented high school graduates who failed to meet the new standard of functional literacy. This number was derived by subtracting the 60 million functionally literate Filipinos under the new definition from the 79 million under the old one.

I am not certain that this entire difference can be attributed solely to the removal of the automatic inclusion of high school or junior high school graduates. Under the old definition, even individuals who could read, write, and compute — but not necessarily comprehend — were also classified as functionally literate. With the new definition requiring all four competencies, the 18 million likely includes not just credentialed graduates, but also those who had lower literacy skills previously sufficient under the old criteria. The assumption that all 18 million were graduates is not supported by either the definitional shift or available education data.

Curiously, the data also hints at a potentially positive trend. The age group with the highest functional literacy rate — 78.2% — is the 20-24-year-olds, the first cohort to have fully gone through SHS under the K to 12 curriculum. Older age groups showed progressively lower rates, dropping to 57.8% among those aged 60-64. While this is not conclusive evidence, it is suggestive that K to 12 may be making a positive difference.

Still, much remains unknown. The PSA’s published tables along with its press statement do not show literacy levels by highest educational attainment, a critical variable for understanding whether and how formal education influences literacy. Nor do we have breakdowns by income, location, or digital access — factors that likely play a role.

This is where the PSA must step up.

As the country’s lead statistical agency, the PSA has a duty not just to collect and analyze data, but to communicate it responsibly and proactively. In this case, the agency should issue a clarification. It should explain the change in definition, correct public misinterpretations, and, critically, release further data that allows for deeper, more targeted analysis. Cross-tabulations by school attainment and income would be a good place to start.

We need this kind of stewardship, especially when the subject is as foundational as literacy.

Literacy is not just a skill. It is a key factor in democracy, economic inclusion, and personal agency. If we are to improve literacy outcomes, we must begin with truthful, comprehensible data and not headlines that mislead or tweets that misinform.

The Senate hearing has done the public a service by surfacing the implications of the new literacy framework. But for this conversation to lead to effective reform, we must separate evidence from the myths generated in its wake.

The literacy crisis is real. The numbers tell a complex story. We owe it to our learners to read it carefully, and to tell it truthfully.

Nepomuceno A. Malaluan is a senior fellow and Trustee at Action for Economic Reforms.