Page 1 of 13

Group 3/ Policy Paper

Title of Policy
I A Policy Paper on Assessment and Certification Program
Paper

Introduction/ Recent trends and development in training and education and in employment indicate an
Background/ increased value and need for assessment and certification of TVET graduates and workers.
Situationer Both the TVET and Industry sectors who are vital stakeholders in the area of employment
of TVET graduates, are cognizance of the fact that assessment and certification are
significant signs/indicators of what an individual can do in the workplace. They are primary
proofs that could interpret the competency of an individual and assure industry employers
of such competency as certified by TESDA.

TESDA for its part has promulgated an Omnibus Amendment on Mandatory Assessment.
Through CACO, it shall install and operationalize an industry-led assessment and
II
certification system. Training Regulations promulgated prior to 2005 have no provision
for mandatory assessment and a policy on mandatory assessment is expected to
dramatically push a significant increase in assessment participation.

But certain questions as well as social implications must be considered for us to weigh this
policy. This calls for the examination of all ingredients and components needed to make
both assessment and certification systems, successfully happen and be a direct attribute to
raising the bar of competencies of the labor market. It would need a deeper
understanding on the effects of mandatory assessment and why it should or should not be
pushed.
III Goals and In achieving the national goal of employment and importing skilled workers abroad and
Objectives raising the standards of technical-vocational education and training, it is important that
the pipe lines that lead to this overarching goal be clearly established. Assessment and
Certification is seen as one of these major pipe lines and therefore this paper shall focus
on this goal:

 Within a period of three (3) years, at least 80% of all persons (TVET graduates and
workers) assessed will be certified and be actually employed or self-employed in
relevant fields.

Specifically, the objectives are:

1. Increase the participation rate in competency assessments to 100%;
2. Increase the national certification rate to at least 80%;
3. Improve mechanisms and conditions of assessment and certification systems such
as:
a. Bringing the number of assessment centers to sufficiency level;
b. Training more tvet and industry trainors to be qualified and competent
assessors in varied fields;
c. Periodically updating assessment tools to respond to its validity and
reliability;
4. Install incentive mechanisms for TVET and industry stakeholders such as:
a. Providing recognition and incentives to high performing institutions
b. Providing recognition or incentives to industries’ participation

Group 3, Policy Paper, Certification and Assessment Center

 Page 2 of 13

IV Identification of What seems to be an idea of “professionalizing” the large population of Filipino skilled
Problem workers is an ambitious goal but not impossible. While the Omnibus Amendment
Mandatory Assessment compels all tvet graduates and workers to undergo
assessment, it is first useful to look at the current situation that could indicate why or
why not mandatory assessment should be instituted as a policy. It is significant to
make an analysis on the data available in order to arrive at an applicable decision.

The current situation, based on raw and statistical data indicate that there is a low
participation rate in assessment based from the number of TVET graduates and
workers expected to undergo assessment and relatively low in certification rate based
from the number of those assessed. To look for the faulty leaks, we would be
prompted to dissect the assessment and certification system in terms of the different
components that comprise it, such as the quality and competence of assessors, the
quality of assessment centers, the competence of the trainors who prepare the
individual for assessment, the quality of training provided by the Institutions, the
validity and reliability of the assessment tools, and the psychological preparedness of
the assessee, among others.

The probability of these components being contributory to poor certification rates and
assessment participation rates are indicated by available data showing the number and
qualifications of assessors, the number and quality of assessment centers nationwide,
the number of tvet graduates, the number of assesses and the number of certified
persons in a span of five (5) years. The idea of voluntary assessment (in contrast to
mandatory assessment) could also possibly answer as to why there is low participation
rate in competency assessment. These issues when plotted in a cause-effect
relationship can be readily shown that all these issues can boil down to the core
problem of poor certification rates shown for the last five years. If this would remain
unsettled, poor certification rates would result to low employability skills of graduates
and lack of pool of skilled workers. These two vital considerations in turn would result
to the inability to answer the demands for “right skills-right job-mix” and would only
deter industry attraction and investments.
The problem therefore can be phrased as follows:

The inadequacy of Qualified and Competent Assessors and Assessment Centers,

lack of Incentive Packages and the irresponsiveness of assessment tools
contributed to low incidence of participation in competency assessments that
had resulted to low National Certification rate.

Group 3, Policy Paper, Certification and Assessment Center

 Page 3 of 13

V Framework / Conditions and mechanisms that operate to make competency assessment and
Hypotheses certification achieve its ultimate goals must simultaneously be satisfied in order that a
quality competency assessment can be realized. On the other hand, certification is the
end result of competency assessment as only assessed persons can rightfully claim to
be certified. Certification stems from industry-based standards captured in Training
Regulations which in turn is the basis for a competency-based curriculum. From this
foundation, assessments can be developed that may lead to certificates of
competencies which become indicators that the individual holder possesses the
necessary knowledge, skills and attitude for the job. This framework is shown in Figure
1 below:

Fig. 1. Framework on Assessment, Certification and Employability

The framework of this Paper revolves on the theoretical assumption that “Quality
Training plus Assessment results to increase in certification rates and employability
levels.” Based on this framework, the following hypotheses are derived:

1. Industry-led assessment improves employability.

2. Accessibility to assessment centers and qualified assessors enhance mandatory
assessment.
3. More certified skilled workers attract investors.
4. TVET graduates or workers and unemployed persons participate in assessment
only if these conditions are present:
a. There are personal benefits or apparent opportunities for a broad
range of benefits (what’s-in-it-for-me mode)
b. “Assessibles” are compelled to comply with assessment by some law or
by an Order emanating from a regulatory/enforcing or higher authority
and failure to comply would lead to negative consequences.

Group 3, Policy Paper, Certification and Assessment Center

 Page 4 of 13

Various data and points of reference are hereby presented to prove the thesis statement
of this Paper looking into the following criteria points:

1. Employment Incidence. This shall answer the question as to how many certified
persons are actually employed in relevant fields and what is the employment rate;
2. Asssessment Participation Incidence. This is to present the number of TVET
graduates and workers assessed annually and show the increase in participation
rate in assessment based on the number of TVET graduates.
3. Certification Incidence. This answers the questions on how many persons are
certified, what is the certification rate based on the number of assessed persons,
and what is the growth rate in terms of certification.
4. Industry Satisfaction level. This will present the data on the satisfaction level of
Industry on the accepted workforce skills as well as show if there is felt demand
for skilled workers.
5. Industry attraction. This is shown in the presence of industry investment in
different areas.
6. Assessment tools. The criteria used will be on timeliness (how updated/outdated
are the assessment tools given the Training regulations, relevance (how matched
are the assessment content with curriculum content), responsiveness, (how
responsive are the assessment tools to the demands of workforce skills as defined
by Industries), and the validity and reliability of instrument.
7. Assessors. This will show the adequacy or sufficiency of number of assessors
nationwide and the number of qualified assessors, to include industry assessors.
8. Assessment Centers. This reflects the adequacy or inadequacy of assessment
centers in varied sectors, the quality of the centers as well as how equitable are
their distribution in terms of geographical location and priority sectors.

Variables Used

The succeeding slides present the variables used in this Paper and their respective
operational definition.

Group 3, Policy Paper, Certification and Assessment Center

 Page 5 of 13

VI Analysis of Data Assessment and Certification

Participation in competency assessment from 2000-2006 showed that from 90,472

assessed persons in Year 2000, this swelled to 257,796 in year 2006 (184%). Certified
persons, on the other hand showed that it has increased from 57,628 (88%).

Table 1. NO. OF ASSESSED AND CERTIFIED, ANNUAL : 2000-2006, ALL REGIONS

YEAR
Category
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

ASSESSED 90,472 185,399 158,305 111,251 207,918 223,984 257,796

CERTIFIED 57,628 144,746 68,529 39,208 122,453 108,361 103,418

Compared however to the number of TVET graduates and the number of persons
assessed for each year, it would indicate low participation rates as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Number of TVET graduates, Persons Assessed and Participation

Rate: 2000-2006, All Regions
YEAR
Category
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
TVET
GRADUATES 340,111 389,336 1,127,363 1,006,561 618,030 1,154,333 1,340,620
PERSONS
ASSESSED 90,487 185,378 300,524 110,111 136,248 218,994 257,796
Assessment
Participation 27% 48% 27% 11% 22% 19.0% 19.2%
Rate

The data reflect that in terms of percentage, Year 2001 recorded the highest number of
TVET graduates who took the competency assessment (48%), while Year 2003 recorded
the lowest number (11%). In 2006, where mandatory assessment would have been
supposedly implemented, the participation rate is only 19.2% despite of the mandate to
mandatorily assess all TVET graduates and implement a policy of “no assessment, no
graduation for training regulations after 2005.

Table 3. Number of Persons Assessed and Certified, and Certification

Rate : 2000-2006, All Regions
YEAR
Category
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
ASSESSED 90,487 185,378 300,524 110,111 136,248 218,994 257,796
CERTIFIED 57,628 144,746 68,529 39,208 122,453 108,361 103,418
Certification
64% 78% 23% 36% 90% 49% 40%
rate

Group 3, Policy Paper, Certification and Assessment Center

 Page 6 of 13

Table 3 reveals that in the Year 2004, 122,453 out of 136,248 persons assessed (90%)
obtained certifications indicating the highest record of number of certifications while Year
2002 registered the lowest at only 23%. In Year 2006, the assessment participation rate
slightly maintained at 19.2% compared to 2005 (shown in Table 2), but obtained 40% of
certifications.

Figure 3 shows
the graphic
presentation of
the rate of
certification
from 2000-
2006 for all
priority sectors.

Figure 3. Certification rate for 2000-2006, all priority sectors.

Comparing the data for assessment and certification presented in Figure 04 below, it
would readily tell us that while in some years e.g. 2001 and 2004, a high certification rate
was registered, the participation level of TVET graduates and workers in assessment is
relatively low. This is further strengthened by the data shown on Fig.5 on assessment
participation rate in competency assessment by tvet graduates and workers for 2001-
2006.

Fig. 04 Assessment Participation and Certification Rate, 2000-2006

Group 3, Policy Paper, Certification and Assessment Center

 Page 7 of 13

Fig. 05 Average % Growth Rate (5 yrs) in Competency Assessment, 2000-2006

Figure 5 explains that in the Year 2002 and 2003 registered a -15% and -30%, respectively
and participation rate surged in Year 2004 to 87% which is the highest percentage
recorded in terms of participation in competency assessment. This remarkable incidence
however failed to be sustained or replicated as in year 2005, participation in assessment
went down to only 8%.

Figure 6 below shows the trend of non-passers in competency assessments in varied

fields, indicating an increasing trend in the rate of non-passers within a span of five (5)
years.

Fig. 06 Rate of Non-Passers in Certifications , 2000-2006

Group 3, Policy Paper, Certification and Assessment Center

 Page 8 of 13

Fig. 7 shows the average annual percentage growth rate of assessment and certification as a
comparison and of the two variables. The data indicate that certification follows the growth rate of
assessments except in 2004 where certification swelled to 212% compared to assessment growth of
87%.

Comparing the data values in Table Nos. 1-3 and Figures 1-7, it is evident that the
participation rate in assessment is relatively low against the number of TVET graduates
and workers qualified to undertake assessment. The data also shows that as participation
in assessment increases, the number of certified persons increased. Is there a significant
correlation therefore between assessment and certification? If there is, then the theory of
increasing assessment incidence in order to increase certification would prove true. Along
this line, mandatory assessment might be indicative of a solution to the problem.

IV Analysis of Data Mechanisms and Conditions that Support Assessment and Certification

The other view that should be looked into point to the different components that
contribute to a successful assessment and certification system, such as the assessors (how
qualified are they and how many are they as against the number of assesses, the trainors
(how competent are they?) the curriculum content, and the assessment tools (how valid
and reliable are they?). The importance of their levels of quality should not be undermined.

Adequacy of Qualified Assessors

The data disclose that as of September, 2007, the number of assessors nationwide reached
a total of 1,429. Table 4 below shows that if spread by Region, most of the number of
qualified assessors would be found in Region VIII and IX, while Region VII have the least
number of assessors. The issue on the sufficiency / adequacy of the number of assessors
was tested against the number of assesses for all regions. Based on available data, it was
found out that the ratio of assessors and assessee was 1:180 which means that there is only
1 assessor for every 180 assessees.

Group 3, Policy Paper, Certification and Assessment Center

 Page 9 of 13

Assuming a scenario of mandatory Table 4. Number of Assessors by Region:

assessment where there would be a September 2007
total of 1,340,620 (Table 2) expected to REGION Total
be assessed, the ratio would be 1:938 NCR 101
which means that there would only be 1 CAR 53
I 44
assessor for every 938 assessors. Within
II 148
this environment, it would be likely
III 41
unsuccessful to opt for mandatory
IV-A 71
assessment at a time when supply of
IV-B 64
assessors is low.
V 132
VI 54
Adequacy of Accredited Assessment VII 22
Centers VIII 214
IX 200
If supply of assessors is low, the number X 51
of assessment centers may not also be XI 90
enough to cater to the assessment XII 75
needs of all expected TVET graduates CARAGA 69
and workers. Data show that as of Total 1,429
September, 2007, the number of
accredited assessment centers totaled to 261 with Region I registering the highest number
at 78. Assuming again a scenario of mandatory assessment and using the total number of
TVET graduates of 1,340,620, the ratio of assessment center and assesses would be 1:988.
Table 5. No. of Assessment Centers per This means that there is 1 assessment
Region: September 2007 center for every 988 assessees. While
the ratio relationship of the number of
REGION Assessment Center
assessment centers and the number of
NCR 31 assesses cannot be established for lack
CAR 18 of data as to the sectors being served
I 78 by these assessment centers, still it
II 14 would seem unlikely that these number
can sufficiently address the problem.
III 1
IV-A 1
V 5
VI 5
VII 1
VIII 1
X 28
XI 25
XII 16
CARAGA 37
Total 261

Group 3, Policy Paper, Certification and Assessment Center

 Page 10 of 13

Validity and Reliability of Assessment Tools

As in any other program, all aspects of assessment need to be constantly monitored,

reviewed and improved. The continuous improvement assessment in both strategies and
tools should be driven by a need due to changes in outcome standards and changes
occurring within the industry. For purposes of clarity, assessment tools are the methods
used to gather assessment evidence and include observation checklists of observed
performances and knowledge tests. It is required that they be valid, reliable, fair and
flexible and most of all, regularly validated and improved. Assessment tools crafted five (5)
years ago may have an issue on validity/reliability if these are still continued to be used 5
years from now, especially if job demands addressed by the tools have already changed.
Assessment tools must also comply with units of competency requirements as well as
customization requirements.

Assessment tools or test packages should be developed as part of development of training

regulations. Training Regulations promulgated without the availability of the assessment
tools would render the assessment and certification system weak and defeated of its
purpose.

Conclusion of Analysis

Certification is perceived as a process whereby a governmental or non-governmental

organization recognizes an individual who meets predetermined qualifications established
by a certification body. The assessment and certification systems drawn out by TESDA may
seem to have fallen in its rightly places but statistical data in addition to the underlying
social implications do not entirely and conclusively support a policy action of mandatory
assessment. Given a 95% level of confidence, the data indicates that assessment is
correlated with certification and that certification is a function of employability. In terms of
relations, we can safely conclude that the higher the assessment rate therefore would
possibly yield to a higher certification rate. While it is easier to pinpoint to mandatory
assessment as a convenient solution to this scenario, there are other ingredients,
conditions and mechanisms supporting the efficacy of an assessment and certification
system that has to be satisfied and dealt with. Much more there are social implications to
mandatory assessment such as the acceptability level of the system by the training
institutions and the guaranteed right of an individual to exercise his right not to be
assessed.

VII Policy
Recommen- Since certification is the goal and assessment is the precondition to the goal, this Paper

Group 3, Policy Paper, Certification and Assessment Center

 Page 11 of 13

dations offers four (4) alternatives/options that would serve as a basis for a stream of higher
actions and decisions, to wit:

OPTION 1: Mandatory Assessment / Status Quo

We define the status quo as that scenario where effective 2006, all TVET trainees are
mandated to undergo competency assessment as prescribed in the training requlations.
The policy of “no assessment, no graduation” rules. Within this situation, so many grey
areas can be pointed out such as it is not clear whether compelling the trainee to
undergo competency assessment mean the same thing as mandating TVET Institutions to
withhold graduation credentials unless this requirement is complied with. There is no
provision that would protect the rights of legitimate Institutions nor protect the rights of
the trainee. In the same manner, prescribing the mandatory assessment under the
training regulations may not have the same effect as prescribing it as a requirement of
the competency-based curriculum. It should be recalled that curriculum is primarily the
business of training institutions and requirements to qualify for graduation are limited to
the compliance of the requirements of the curriculum. Conferring a certificate of
completion or graduation in the education and training parlance, simply requires
satisfaction of the curriculum. To implement mandatory assessment as prescribed by the
training regulations require a revision of each of the curriculum registered under UTPRAS.

OPTION 2; Voluntary Assessment

Voluntary assessment is a scenario entirely opposite of the mandatory assessment. In this

situation, trainees are free to exercise their rights to submit for assessment or not or the
right to be certified or not. The underlying philosophy in voluntary assessment and
certification, just like in any professional certification systems, is that certification is a
validating process and the qualifications within such certification system is a designation
earned. Unlike licensure (normally required by law), certification is generally voluntary.
They indicate that the individual has earned specific knowledge, skills and abilities in the
view of a certifying body (such as TESDA or an Industry sector) after the individual has
passed the test following a standard assessment procedure. Within the confines of this
philosophy, it appears that mandating all trainees to be certified defeats the very essence
of certification.

This option of voluntary assessment merely provides the right to the individual to be
assessed of competencies or not after he/she has completed training. This option,
however may not lead towards the solution of the problem of increasing our pool of
skilled workers. As it was done in the past 5 years based on data, participation in
assessment would render a low participation rate which ultimately would not project a
good number of skilled workers vis a vis the demands of Industries.

Option 3: Modified Voluntary Assessment

Group 3, Policy Paper, Certification and Assessment Center

 Page 12 of 13

This option is a modified version of Option 3 as an attempt to correct its flaw. Under this
option, the right to be assessed or not to be assessed is granted to the individual but
certain conditions around it are installed and established such that the individual would
move towards assessment and certification. These conditions are:

1. The requirement of legislating an Act (law) that would require local

Industry/business employers to give preferential rights to certified individuals;
2. The requirement for training Institutions to prepare their trainees for assessment
and certification;
3. Given nos. 1 and 2, providing incentive packages to high performing Institutions
and providing incentive packages to high performing industry/business
employers who have hired certified individuals.

The application of this option, however would still render some flaws in relation to
achieving the goal of certification for an increased pool of skilled workers for local and
foreign consumption. First, there can be no guarantee that the Industry/business
employers would be receptive of the law based on the culture and values of Filipino
organizations; second, incentive packages is a softer version of “carrot-and-stick”
approach which may no longer hold appealing in the modern times, thus Institutions who
may not be interested of the carrot, may not lean towards assessment and certification.

OPTION 4; Modified Version of Mandatory and Voluntary Assessment

A modified version of the mandatory assessment is an offered solution to the perceived

defects of a strictly mandatory assessment in accordance with training regulations and
other social implications. This modified version is a mix of the mandatory and modified
voluntary options. The features of this modified version would include:

1. Assessment is required at the Institutional levels and only the Institutions will be
mandated to conduct Institutional assessments with certain “safety nets” to
ensure validity of the assessments such as, assessment can be conducted only by
independent and/or industry trainors or by TESDA
2. Given the scenario in no. 1, the institutional assessment will be made a
requirement of the competency-based training curriculum so that it can be made
part of requirements for graduation.
3. To increase levels of acceptance, incentives mechanisms be installed and
provided to high performing Institutions

This modified version, if subjected into more details, coats the possible legal and social
implications in Option 1 of mandatory assessment. If at all, there would be a wider
acceptance level among training institutions and trainees.

Given the four (4) alternatives offered by this Paper, the writers choose Option 4 as the
best alternative that would likely achieve the goal of 80% certification of assessed
graduates and workers, based on the following grounds:

First, this modified version of mandatory and voluntary assessment eases up the social

Group 3, Policy Paper, Certification and Assessment Center

 Page 13 of 13

implication of acceptability among training institutions considering that they are made an
essential part of assessment. It attempts to resolve the grey areas in the other options and
reconciles the good points of each alternative.

Second, while mandatory assessment may be good because it can directly speed up the
achievement of the goal, certain conditions must be grounded in such a way that in the
future, assessment and certification becomes a natural act and consequence rather than a
compelled act. Hence, it is important that TESDA and the certifying bodies be fully
prepared in meeting the requirements of quality in a mandatory assessment such as
adequacy and quality of assessors, validity and reliability of assessment tools, competency
of trainors to prepare trainees for assessment and certification, and adequacy and quality
of assessment centers. The writers believe that all other factors which are either
procedural or human in nature will naturally come into play as soon as the important
ingredients and installed.

Third, since certification is always a function of training and assessment, the problem on
low certification rate should be solved through the training and assessment route. Since
government cannot mandate certification but can merely install and operationalize the
system, mandatory assessment can be rationalized through the installation of mechanisms
that would defeat the legal and social implications attached to any mandate. This should
start from the upgrading of the quality of training institutions who prepare the trainees for
assessment and certification.

Fourth, we perceive Option 4 as the face of a man with an iron hand underneath a velvet
glove. It is both harsh and kind to the trainee. While this policy can be harsh to the
trainee who is the subject of assessment and certification, the Institutions can play the
softer side in playing the role of a mother preparing the child for a bigger challenge. To
prepare the trainee for assessment and certification is a more crucial step to passing the
challenge. TESDA cannot psychologically prepare the trainee by direct compulsion
because that domain belongs to the training Institutions.

In summary, it can be said that the fourth option leads to encouraging the Institutions to
revise their training curricula and everything else will follow in its natural course. Nothing
else could be better.

VIII Writers Marycel C. Engracia - Region IX

Marigold Cherie R. Garrido – Region X
Francisco P. de la Peña, Jr. – PTESDC, Region XI

Group 3, Policy Paper, Certification and Assessment Center