# EDCOM II's Three Reports: How the Key Numbers Changed

Sixteen EDCOM II headline numbers traced through the 2024, 2025 and 2026 reports: which changed, which were reused, and why the reports disagree.

This is the Markdown copy of [EDCOM II's Three Reports: How the Key Numbers Changed](https://nash.com.ph/blog/edcom-ii-reports-key-numbers), an article on the NASH Reviewer Blog by Mark Anthony Llego, published Oct 30, 2026, updated Nov 4, 2026. Topics: Aspiring school heads, Learning outcomes. NASH Reviewer is an independent practice platform not affiliated with DepEd, BHROD, or NEAP.

EDCOM II's headline numbers did not stay fixed across its three reports: some changed, some were carried forward unchanged, and in places the reports disagree. The comparison below is for aspiring school heads preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH), and for researchers who need to know which EDCOM II figure to cite, from which report and which page.

EDCOM II is the Second Congressional Commission on Education, created by Republic Act No. 11899. It published three reports: the Year One Report, *Miseducation: The Failed System of Philippine Education* (2024); the Year Two Report, *Fixing the Foundations: A Matter of National Survival* (2025); and the Final Report, *Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026–2035)* (2026). A number quoted as "EDCOM II says" can come from any of the three, and the same indicator often has two or three values.

For 16 indicators that appear in at least two reports, the table below gives each report's value, the year of the data and the printed page. The sections after the table explain each change, using the reasons the reports themselves give. Other posts in this series treat spending, textbooks and mass promotion in depth; this post is the cross-report comparison.

## Key findings

- **Several headline numbers were carried forward, not updated.** The classroom backlog of 165,443 appears in the Year Two Report (p. 127) and three times in the Final Report (pp. 25, 183, 448). The Final Report's learning poverty rate of 91% (p. 151) is the same World Bank 2022 estimate the Year Two Report gave as "nine out of 10" (p. 59).
- **Where newer data existed, the numbers moved.** Stunting among children under five fell from 26.7% in 2021 (Year One Report, pp. xxv, 16) to 23.6% in 2023 (Final Report, p. 90). The tertiary gross enrollment rate rose from 34.89% in 2021 (Year One Report, p. 131) to 47% in 2024 (Final Report, p. 207).
- **The principal shortage has at least five counts in two reports.** They are 24,916 schools without a principal in SY 2023–2024 (Year Two Report, p. 257), 18,576 schools with no principal items in SY 2024–2025 (Final Report, pp. 297, 390), "over 21,800 schools without a principal" (pp. 32, 300), 22,163 School Principal I items still to be created (p. 288) and 25,656 principal posts to fill (p. 298).
- **Functional literacy dropped on paper because its definition changed.** The 2019 survey put it at 91.6% (Year Two Report, p. 104). Under the new definition, which requires comprehension, the 2024 survey found "almost 30%" of Filipinos aged 10 to 64 functionally illiterate (Final Report, pp. 53, 67).
- **One count kept changing.** The Year One Report listed at least 68 interagency bodies (p. xxxiv). The Year Two Report said further research raised the count to "over a hundred" (p. 324). The Final Report gives several counts: "sixty-eight" (p. 347) and "more than 68" (p. 352), DepEd's update to 261 (p. 349), and an estimate of "about 130" (p. 498), which its plan uses as the baseline to rationalize (p. 499).
- **Two reports print different teacher licensure passing rates for the same years.** For secondary teachers, the Year One Report gives 46% in 2017 and 51% in 2023 (p. 179); the Final Report gives 38.0% and 57.8% (p. 269).
- **The reports give different averages for education's share of GDP and do not reconcile them.** The Year One and Final Reports say government expenditure on education averaged 3.6% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014–2022 (Year One Report, p. 274; Final Report, p. 360). The Year Two Report says the education budget averaged 3.2% "in the last 10 years" (p. 349) and 3.7% from 2018 (p. 351).

## Three reports, three different jobs

The three reports were not written to be compared line by line. Each had a different job, and the job explains much of how its numbers were chosen.

**The Year One Report diagnosed.** Its introduction says, "If there is anything this report aims to impart on its readers, it is this: There is an education crisis in the country" (p. l). The Commission set 28 priority areas, organized by its standing committees, and focused on 12 of them in its first year (p. lviii). Each subsector chapter gives findings and recommendations by priority area and closes with "Next Steps for Year 2" (for example, p. 77).

**The Year Two Report narrowed the diagnosis to the foundations.** Its introduction names three impediments: "We have spread ourselves too thinly"; the system "did not consistently track learning outcomes of students"; and it "lacked the ability to enforce accountability" (p. 42). The Commission pursued 16 of the 28 priority areas in 2024 (p. 42), building on the same list (p. 50). Each chapter opens with "Year One Updates" before a "Year Two Overview" (for example, pp. 61 and 63), so many Year Two numbers are updates of Year One numbers.

**The Final Report synthesizes and plans.** Its introduction says it draws together three years of evidence, "synthesizing newly released studies, refining earlier findings, correcting outdated data" (p. 54). It contains a three-year synthesis of evidence organized by the same numbered priority areas, 1 to 27 (from pp. 82–83), and a chapter on education in the Bangsamoro (p. 372). At its center is the National Education Plan (from pp. 424–425), which the introduction calls the National Education and Workforce Development Plan (NatPlan) for 2026–2035 (p. 54).

The plan regroups the work into six Key Priority Areas (p. 429) and 20 priority recommendations (pp. 40–41, 432). Every outcome has a baseline and targets for 2028, 2031 and 2035, years chosen "to align with national political cycles" (p. 427). A Workforce Development Plan (pp. 510–511), a chapter on the Filipino learner (pp. 568–569), reflections on reform (p. 592) and an epilogue on the Monroe Report (pp. 618–619) follow. The [National Education Plan guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/national-education-plan-2026-2035) covers the plan in detail, and the [Final Report guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/edcom-ii-final-report) covers its findings for school heads.

| | Year One Report (2024) | Year Two Report (2025) | Final Report (2026) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title | *Miseducation: The Failed System of Philippine Education* | *Fixing the Foundations: A Matter of National Survival* | *Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026–2035)* |
| Length of the PDF | 398 pages | 395 pages | 634 pages |
| Main job | Diagnosis: "There is an education crisis in the country" (p. l) | Foundations first, three impediments (p. 42) | Three-year synthesis and a ten-year plan (pp. 54–55) |
| Priority areas | 28 set, 12 in focus in year one (p. lviii) | The same 28, 16 pursued in 2024 (pp. 42, 50) | Synthesis by priority areas 1 to 27; the plan in 6 Key Priority Areas and 20 priority recommendations (pp. 40–41, 429) |
| How numbers are presented | Findings and recommendations by priority area | "Year One Updates", then "Year Two Overview" | Synthesis findings, then baselines and targets for 2028, 2031 and 2035 |

The practical consequence is simple. The Final Report is the right default source, because it is the latest and says it corrects outdated data. But it does not list which numbers it corrected, and in several places it repeats an older figure, or prints different figures for the same indicator on different pages. The table shows which.

## The indicator table: 16 numbers across three reports

Each cell gives the value, the year of the data where the report states it, and the printed page. A dash means the report gives no value for that indicator. The last column gives the reason the reports give for a change, or says that they give none.

| Indicator | Year One Report (2024) | Year Two Report (2025) | Final Report (2026) | What changed, and the reports' reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PISA 2022: 15-year-olds below minimum proficiency | More than 75% in math, reading and science, pp. xlix, 81 | Only 24% at Level 2 or higher in reading, p. 104 | Over 75% in math, reading and science, p. 416; "over 70%" in math, p. 22 | Same test, worded differently |
| Learning poverty and learning gap | 12.9 years of schooling by age 18, worth 7.5 years when learning is counted (World Bank, 2022), pp. xxvi, 81 | "Nine out of 10" children cannot read proficiently (World Bank, 2022); a 6-year lag (another study), p. 59 | 91% of 10-year-olds (World Bank, 2022), pp. 151, 416; learning gap of 5.5 years, pp. 151–152; 7.5 learning-adjusted years, p. 362 | The same World Bank estimates repeated; the 6-year figure came from a different study |
| Functional literacy | No rate; criticizes the survey's definition, p. 100 | 91.6% (2019 survey); a simulated 30-point drop under the new definition, pp. 104–105 | "Almost 30%" of ages 10 to 64 functionally illiterate (2024 survey), p. 53 | New definition approved in 2024 (Year Two Report, p. 104); the 2024 survey used it (Final Report, p. 67) |
| Stunting, children under 5 | 26.7% (2021), pp. xxv, 16 | 26.7% (2021), pp. 64, 67; "hovered stubbornly at 20% since 2000", p. 44 | 23.6% (2023 National Nutrition Survey), pp. 21, 90 | Newer survey |
| Early childhood education participation | Plan target of 28% for 2024, ages 0 to 4, p. 47 | 18%, p. 44; Pre-Kindergarten attendance at ages 3–4 rose from 3% to 40% since the 1990s, p. 87 | 21% of 3- to 4-year-olds, p. 21; 13.4% of households with children 0–4 and 29.12% (2024), p. 108; 29.12% as the 2014–2022 average, p. 362 | Different age groups, units and sources; not reconciled |
| Classroom backlog | – | 165,000, p. 23; 165,443 "as per DepEd", p. 127 | 165,443, pp. 25, 183, 448; 219,000 classrooms needed by 2028, p. 448 | The same DepEd figure reused; the Year Two Report notes conflicting DepEd figures (p. 127) |
| Schools on double or triple shifts | – | 2,591 with double shifts, p. 128; regional totals for SY 2023–2024 that add up to 2,223, p. 129 | 2,233, p. 178; 1,410 schools with elementary offerings (SY 2023–2024 data), p. 448 | Not reconciled; the plan's count covers schools with elementary offerings only |
| Schools without a principal | – | 24,916 of 45,199 (SY 2023–2024), p. 257; 45% with a designated principal, p. 29 | 18,576 (48%) with no principal items (SY 2024–2025), pp. 297, 390; 25,656 posts to fill, p. 298 | Different year, data system and measure |
| Textbook titles procured | 27 textbooks since 2012, Grades 1 to 10, pp. xxvii, 83 | 27 titles in the past decade, p. 100; 35 of 90 MATATAG titles for Grades 4 and 7 fully delivered by January 2025, p. 22 | 27 titles in 2012–2023; over 100 new titles in 2024, pp. 24, 131 | Year One count carried forward; 2024 added |
| Teacher licensure (BLEPT) passing rate, 2023 | Elementary 44%, secondary 51%, p. 179 | – | Elementary 46.1%, secondary 57.8%, p. 269 | Not explained; both cite PBEd's 2010–2022 analysis and PRC data |
| Out-of-school youth in the Alternative Learning System (ALS) | – | About 600,000 of 4.9 million (12.2%); 50% complete, p. 23 | 617,712 of 4.9 million (12.6%) in SY 2024–2025; about 43% complete, p. 191 | Newer data |
| Tertiary gross enrollment rate | 34.89% (2021), behind Thailand and four other ASEAN countries, pp. 129, 131 | – | 47% (2024), "second only to Singapore", p. 207 | Newer World Bank data |
| TESDA industry boards | 40 (December 2023), 6 of them national, pp. 217, 226 | 63 (June 2024), p. 307; Table 7's columns add up to 7 national, 21 regional and 35 provincial | 15 national plus 81 regional or provincial (October 2025), p. 309 | Newer data |
| Education spending, share of GDP | Expenditure: 3.6% average, 2014–2022; peak of 3.9% in 2017 (World Bank), p. 274 | Budget: 3.2% average "in the last 10 years", p. 349; peak of 4.0% in 2017, then 3.7% average, p. 351 | 3.6% average, 2014–2022, p. 360; 3.9% in 2025, p. 362; 4.4% or 4.5% for 2026, pp. 346, 362 | Not reconciled; Year Two speaks of the education budget, Year One of expenditure (World Bank) |
| Cumulative public spending per learner to age 15 (USD PPP) | 11,000 (text: 2017 spending; table note cites PISA 2022), p. 275 | 11,000 (cited to PISA 2018), p. 353 | 8,474 (2018) and 11,303 (2022), p. 345; 11,000 in 2018, p. 418 | Different sources and dates; not reconciled |
| Interagency bodies | At least 68, pp. xxxiv, 263 | "Over a hundred", p. 324 | "Sixty-eight", p. 347; "more than 68", p. 352; 261 (DepEd, October 28, 2025), p. 349; "about 130", pp. 498–499 | Year Two revised the count after "further desk research"; the Final Report adds DepEd's 261 and an estimate of about 130, but some chapters keep 68 |

USD PPP means United States dollars at purchasing power parity. ASEAN is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and TESDA the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority.

### Four indicators with newer data

Four indicators in the table changed because the Final Report had a later survey or a later school year. Figure 1 shows them on one scale.

![Dumbbell chart of four indicators, each with an earlier-report value and a Final Report value. Stunting among children under five falls from 26.7 to 23.6 percent, the tertiary gross enrollment rate rises from 34.89 to 47 percent, out-of-school youth enrolled in ALS rise from 12.2 to 12.6 percent, and ALS completion falls from 50 to about 43 percent.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/three-reports-newer-data.DNriy9Xh_ZVtYqw.webp)

*Figure 1. Four indicators printed in an earlier EDCOM II report and again, with newer data, in the Final Report. Values from different reports are combined, and the data years differ by row. Data: EDCOM II Year One Report (2024), pp. xxv and 16, and Table 1, p. 131; Year Two Report (2025), Figure 2, p. 64, and p. 23; Final Report (2026), pp. 90, 191 and 207. Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/three-reports-newer-data.png) or [its data (CSV)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/three-reports-newer-data.csv).*

| Indicator | Earlier report | Final Report |
|---|---|---|
| Stunting, children under 5 | 26.7% (2021), Year One pp. xxv, 16; Year Two p. 64 | 23.6% (2023), p. 90 |
| Tertiary gross enrollment rate | 34.89% (2021), Year One p. 131 | 47% (2024), p. 207 |
| Out-of-school youth enrolled in ALS | 12.2%, Year Two p. 23 | 12.6% (SY 2024–2025), p. 191 |
| ALS enrollees who complete | 50%, Year Two p. 23 | About 43% (SY 2024–2025), p. 191 |

## Learning outcomes: the same sources, quoted differently

**PISA.** The learning-outcome numbers changed least, because the international tests did not change between the reports. The Year One Report says more than 75% of 15-year-old Filipino learners scored below the minimum proficiency level in math, reading and science in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022, "similar to 2018" (p. 81). The Year Two Report gives the reading result: "only 24% of students performed at Level 2 or higher in reading literacy" (p. 104). The Final Report repeats "over 75%" (p. 416). Its executive summary instead says that "over 70% do not meet minimum proficiency in mathematics" and refers to "the PISA 2019 and 2024" (p. 22), while the other chapters cite the 2018 and 2022 cycles.

The mean scores appear in two tables with identical values: 355 in math, 347 in reading and 356 in science, with cumulative spending of USD 11,000. The Year One table cites "PISA 2022 Results Factsheets" (Table 2, p. 275). The Year Two table cites "PISA 2018 Results" (Table 6, p. 353). Neither report comments on the other's source note.

**Learning poverty.** The World Bank's estimate that about nine in ten Filipino 10-year-olds cannot read and understand an age-appropriate text first appears in the Year Two Report as "Nine out of 10 Filipino children cannot read proficiently" (World Bank, 2022; p. 59). The Final Report gives it as 91% (pp. 151, 416) and draws a regional comparison from the World Bank's October 2025 update (Figure 10, p. 151). Its executive summary attaches "nine in ten" to learners at age 15 and cites the World Bank for 2025 (p. 22).

**Learning-adjusted schooling.** The Year One Report cites the Human Capital Index: a learner who starts school at 4 "would have received 12.9 years of schooling by age 18", but "only 7.5 years" when learning is counted (p. 81). The Final Report keeps 7.5 learning-adjusted years (Table 2, p. 362) and adds a "learning gap" of 5.5 years (pp. 151–152). The Year Two Report's figure, that Filipino students "lag by 6 years", comes from a different study (Bautista and Aranas, 2023; p. 59).

**Functional literacy.** This is the clearest case of a number that changed because its definition changed. The Year One Report objected that the Functional Literacy, Education, and Mass Media Survey (FLEMMS) counts anyone who completed high school as functionally literate (p. 100). The Year Two Report gives the 2019 results, basic literacy at 96.5% and functional literacy at 91.6% (p. 104). It reports that EDCOM II's recommendations led the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) to adopt Board Resolution No. 2024-13, under which "functional literacy now requires comprehension" (p. 104). A PSA simulation under the new standards showed "a 7-point decline in basic literacy and a 30-point drop in functional literacy rates" (p. 105).

The Final Report then gives the 2024 result: "almost 30% of Filipinos aged 10 to 64 remain functionally illiterate", including nearly one in three high school graduates (p. 53). It puts the number of functionally illiterate Filipinos at 11.8 million in 2025, against 10.3 million in 1991 (p. 53). The Final Report confirms that "the 2024 FLEMMS questionnaire and definitions for basic and functional literacy was revised (to include comprehension)" (p. 67). The fall from 91.6% is mostly a change of measuring stick. It should not be read as five years of decline.

**National assessments.** The reports also changed how they report national test results. The Year One Report cites mean percentage scores for the Grade 6 National Achievement Test (NAT) of SY 2020–2021, for example 41% in math (p. 81). The Final Report cites the share of learners who are proficient, for example 19.56% in Grade 6 (p. 152). The two measures cannot be compared. The count of assessments changed too. The Year One Report mapped them in five levels without a total (p. 95) and said the Bureau of Education Assessment runs "12 assessment programs" a year (p. 104). The Final Report counts "14 assessments currently implemented", against an average of four in the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and its count includes classroom tools such as the Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) (p. 139). The post on [mass promotion and lost instructional time](https://nash.com.ph/blog/mass-promotion-instructional-time-edcom-ii) covers the national results in detail.

## Early childhood: stunting fell, and participation depends on the definition

**Stunting.** The Year One Report gives 26.7% (p. xxv), from a 2021 national survey (Figure 2, p. 16). The Year Two Report gives the same 26.7% for 2021 (Figure 2, p. 64; p. 67), though its introduction says stunting rates "have hovered stubbornly at 20% since 2000" (p. 44). The Final Report uses the 2023 National Nutrition Survey: 23.6% of children under five are stunted (pp. 21, 90). The National Education Plan takes 23.6% as its baseline and targets 17.9% by 2028, 13.5% by 2031 and below 10% by 2035 (p. 433). The reason is a newer survey. The post on [stunting, day care centers and early reading](https://nash.com.ph/blog/stunting-day-care-and-reading) shows the same pattern at the school level.

**Participation in early childhood education.** No indicator has more values. The Year One Report cites the Philippine Development Plan's 2024 target of 28% for children aged 0 to 4.11 (p. 47). The Year Two Report says participation "is abysmal at 18%" (p. 44), and in another chapter that Pre-Kindergarten attendance among 3- to 4-year-olds rose from 3% to 40% since the 1990s (p. 87). The Final Report gives 21% for 3- to 4-year-olds (p. 21), repeats 18% in its synthesis (p. 85), and gives 13.4% of households with children aged 0 to 4 in 2024 (p. 108).

It also gives 29.12% from the 2024 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (p. 108). The same 29.12% appears in its Table 2 as the "average from 2014-2022" (p. 362). These figures use different age groups (0 to 4, 3 to 4), different units (children, households) and different surveys. None of the reports reconciles them, so a citation should always name the age group and the source.

**Parents who think their child is "too young".** The Year One Report says that in the 2019 FLEMMS, "97.8% of the respondents thought that children 3 to 4 years old were too young to go to school" (pp. 48–49). The Year Two Report gives "around 97%" from the same 2019 survey (p. 87). The Final Report gives 97% but calls it "the 2021 Functional Literacy, Education, and Mass Media Survey" (p. 108).

## Schools: classrooms, shifts and principals

**The classroom backlog.** The Year One Report gives no national count. The Year Two Report gives 165,000 in its executive summary (p. 23) and 165,443 "as per DepEd" in the infrastructure chapter (p. 127). A footnote on that page warns that DepEd's Education Facilities Division and Finance Division "reported conflicting figures regarding classroom construction targets, accomplishments, and backlogs from 2014 to 2024" (p. 127).

The Final Report repeats 165,443 (pp. 25, 183). Its regional breakdown comes from the National School Building Inventory "as of June 30, 2023" (Figure 19, p. 179). The National Education Plan counts 219,000 classrooms needed by 2028, adding 51,222 classrooms for condemnation and 2,335 destroyed by calamities to the same backlog (p. 448). Since the Final Report, an EDCOM II news release of September 23, 2026 has reported "DepEd's classroom backlog stands at 147,347, as of September 2025". The [2023 classroom shortage report](https://nash.com.ph/blog/classroom-shortage-philippines-2023) maps the 165,443 by school, and the [School Building Program guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-school-building-program-2026) covers what is being built.

**Schools on shifts.** There are four printed counts and no reconciliation. The Year Two Report says "there are now 2,591 public schools (5.4%) having double shifts" (p. 128). Its Figure 9 on the next page gives regional totals from DepEd's Learner Information System as of January 31, 2024, from Region IV-A (712) down to Region II (1), which add up to 2,223 (p. 129). The Final Report, citing Navarro (2022) and the Year Two Report, gives "2,233 public schools compelled to operate double or even triple shifts" (p. 178). The National Education Plan's baseline is 1,410 schools with multiple shifts, which its footnote limits to schools "with elementary offering" in SY 2023–2024; it splits them into 1,301 double, 31 triple and 78 with two or more shifts (p. 448). The September 2026 news release gives 1,889 schools on double or triple shifts in SY 2024–2025. The post on [class shifts and crowded classrooms](https://nash.com.ph/blog/class-shifting-crowded-classrooms) uses DepEd's own files.

**Schools without a principal.** This is the indicator that matters most to an aspiring school head, and the two reports count it at least five ways. Figure 2 shows the four exact counts; the fifth, "over 21,800 schools without a principal" (pp. 32, 300), is printed only as a lower bound.

![Horizontal bar chart of four of the counts of the principal gap. Year Two Report: 24,916 schools without a principal in SY 2023-2024. Final Report: 18,576 schools with no principal items in SY 2024-2025, 22,163 School Principal I items still to be created, and 25,656 principal posts to fill for one principal per school.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/three-reports-principal-counts.3ou_pVIN_Z25CYtt.webp)

*Figure 2. Four of the counts of the principal gap in the Year Two and Final Reports; the Final Report's "over 21,800" (pp. 32, 300) is not charted because it is printed as a lower bound. Each count uses a different year, data source or measure. Data: EDCOM II Year Two Report (2025), Figure 10, p. 257; Final Report (2026), Figure 5, p. 288, pp. 297 and 390, and Figure 6, p. 298. Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/three-reports-principal-counts.png) or [its data (CSV)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/three-reports-principal-counts.csv).*

| Report and page | What is counted | Data | Count |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year Two, p. 257 (Figure 10) | Schools without a principal (head teacher, teacher-in-charge or officer-in-charge only, or undefined) | Basic Education Information System, SY 2023–2024 | 24,916 of 45,199 schools |
| Final, pp. 297, 390 | Schools with no principal items | DepEd data, SY 2024–2025 | 18,576 (48%) |
| Final, p. 288 (Figure 5) | School Principal I items still to be created under the proposed staffing standards | DepEd submission, October 2025 | 22,163 of 45,785 required |
| Final, p. 298 (Figure 6) | Principal posts to fill for one principal per school | Learner Information System, SY 2025–2026; DepEd's Government Manpower Information System, June 30, 2025 | 25,656 of 47,972 public schools |

The reports agree that about half of public schools lack a principal. They differ on what is counted. The Year Two Report counts who actually heads each school, and its text gives "only 20,283 out of 45,199 public schools (45%)" with a principal (p. 257), against 20,381 in its Figure 10. It warns of "data inconsistencies due to varying collection times" (p. 258).

The Final Report counts plantilla items. Its National Education Plan baseline is 23,661 schools (52%) with Principal I to IV items in June 2025, of which 22,320 were filled (p. 495). Its recommendations speak of "over 21,800 schools without a principal" (pp. 32, 300). The Final Report attributes the 18,576 to "EDCOM II's Year One and Year Two reports" (p. 297) and, on another page, to "School Year 2024-2025 DepEd data" (p. 390). The Year One Report has no count of schools without principals, and the Year Two Report's count is 24,916 (p. 257).

One number did carry forward unchanged. Both reports count 12,057 schools with school-head items that do not follow DepEd's deployment policy (Year Two Report, p. 258; Final Report, p. 390). For what this means for your own appointment, see [principal, head teacher or teacher-in-charge](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-head-teacher-teacher-in-charge) and the [SY 2023-2024 principals and head teachers report](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-principals-head-teachers-sy-2023-2024).

**Administrative officers.** Support staff counts rose between the Year Two and Final Reports, and the Year One Report gives the hiring rate. The Year One Report says administrative officers have been hired at "5,000 per year starting in 2020" (p. xxxi). The Year Two Report counts 24,519 Administrative Officer II personnel "as of 2024" (p. 29). The Final Report gives two totals: "now totaling 33,313" after 10,000 items were added for 2025 (p. 73), and 34,519 existing Administrative Officer II items in DepEd's staffing-standards submission (Figure 5, p. 288; p. 452).

**Textbooks.** The Year One Report found "only 27 textbooks have been procured since 2012" for Grades 1 to 10 (p. 83). The Year Two Report carries the same 27 forward (p. 100) and adds that only 35 of 90 MATATAG textbook titles for Grades 4 and 7 had been fully delivered as of January 2025 (p. 22). The Final Report keeps the 27 for 2012–2023 and reports "over 100 new textbook titles in 2024 alone" (pp. 24, 131). The post on [why DepEd bought only 27 textbook titles in 2012-2023](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-textbook-shortage-edcom-ii) explains the procurement history.

## Teachers: two sets of licensure passing rates

The Year One Report charts passing rates in the Board Licensure Examination for Professional Teachers (BLEPT) from 2009 to 2023, printed as whole percents (Figure 1, p. 179). It notes that "only an average of 33% (elementary) and 40% (secondary)" passed over that period (p. 178). The Final Report tables the "Total Passing Rate" from 2010 to 2025 to one decimal place (Table 1, p. 269). Neither report prints a value for 2020. For most years the two agree within about two points. For some they do not (Figure 3).

![Two line charts of BLEPT passing rates by year, elementary on the left and secondary on the right, each with a Year One Report series and a Final Report series. The secondary series diverge in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2023; the elementary series diverge most in 2017. Neither report has a 2020 value.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/three-reports-blept-pass-rates.C0BYvQQE_1NDmNJ.webp)

*Figure 3. BLEPT passing rates for the same years as printed in the Year One Report and the Final Report; neither report prints a value for 2020. Values from two reports are combined. Data: EDCOM II Year One Report (2024), Figure 1, p. 179; Final Report (2026), Table 1, p. 269. Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/three-reports-blept-pass-rates.png) or [its data (CSV)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/three-reports-blept-pass-rates.csv).*

| Year | Elementary, Year One (%) | Elementary, Final (%) | Secondary, Year One (%) | Secondary, Final (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 31 | 29.7 | 42 | 37.6 |
| 2017 | 26 | 19.9 | 46 | 38.0 |
| 2018 | 20 | 21.6 | 48 | 41.2 |
| 2019 | 31 | 29.6 | 40 | 34.5 |
| 2022 | 52 | 54.2 | 50 | 51.3 |
| 2023 | 44 | 46.1 | 51 | 57.8 |

Neither report explains the difference. Both cite PBEd's 2010–2022 analysis (dated 2023 in the Year One Report, "published 2024" in the Final Report) and PRC data. The Year One Report cites a 2023 report by the Philippine Business for Education (PBEd), titled *Are We Properly Preparing Our Future Teachers? An Analysis of the BLEPT Performance of Teacher Education Institutions in the Philippines: 2010–2022*, for 2009 to 2019, and the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) website for 2021 to 2023 (p. 179). The Final Report cites "PBEd's 2010–2022 BLEPT Performance Analysis (published 2024) and PRC official data for 2023–2025" (p. 269). Most of the large gaps, in 2015 and 2017 to 2019, fall in years that both reports attribute to PBEd; the 2023 secondary gap (51 against 57.8) falls in a year that both attribute to PRC data. The Final Report's 2023 secondary rate, 57.8%, is also the value it prints for 2021. The same table gives 2025, when secondary passing reached 72.6% (p. 269). Anyone citing a BLEPT rate from EDCOM II should give the report and page, not just the year.

## After basic education: ALS, TVET and higher education

**The Alternative Learning System.** Both reports use 4.9 million out-of-school youth as the base. The Year Two Report says ALS "has reached only around 600,000 (12.2%), of which only 50% complete their studies" (p. 23). The Final Report gives "617,712 or 12.6%" enrolled in SY 2024–2025, with "around 43%" completing (p. 191). Coverage barely moved, and completion fell. The [ALS and inclusive education guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-als-inclusive-education-programs) explains the programs.

**Higher education.** The Year One Report gives a tertiary gross enrollment rate of 34.89% in 2021, "lagging behind Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam" (p. 129), with Thailand at 49.67% in its table (Table 1, p. 131). The Final Report gives 47% in 2024, "ranking second only to Singapore (97.29%, 2023) and slightly above Thailand (44.98%, 2024)" (p. 207). The newer World Bank data reverse the Philippines' position against Thailand. On a later page, the Final Report says the country's rate is "at 38%" (p. 404), the figure and comparison countries that p. 207 dates to 1985.

**Industry boards for technical and vocational education and training (TVET).** TESDA's industry boards are the one TVET count that rose cleanly in each report (Figure 4).

![Bar chart of TESDA industry boards in the three reports: 40 as of December 2023 in the Year One Report, 63 as of June 2024 in the Year Two Report, and 15 national plus 81 regional or provincial boards as of October 2025 in the Final Report.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/three-reports-industry-boards.DyT6OqlG_Z1wVzm2.webp)

*Figure 4. TESDA industry boards as counted in each EDCOM II report. The Final Report prints the national and the regional or provincial counts, not a total. Data: EDCOM II Year One Report (2024), p. 217 and Table 3, p. 227; Year Two Report (2025), p. 307; Final Report (2026), p. 309. Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/three-reports-industry-boards.png) or [its data (CSV)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/three-reports-industry-boards.csv).*

| Report | As of | Industry boards | Page |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year One | December 2023 | 40, of which 6 national | pp. 217, 226 |
| Year Two | June 2024 (Table 7: TESDA, September 2024) | 63; Table 7's columns add up to 7 national, 21 regional and 35 provincial | p. 307 |
| Final | October 2025 | 15 national and 81 regional or provincial | p. 309 |

National boards can be followed across all three reports: 6 in the Year One Report, 7 in the Year Two Report's Table 7 and 15 in the Final Report. The Year Two text dates its count "As of June 2024", while Table 7 cites "TESDA, September 2024" (p. 307).

**TVET enrollment.** The reports print different enrollment figures for the same year, 2020, from different tables. The Year One Report gives 307,498 community-based, 26,616 enterprise-based and 342,836 institution-based enrollees (Table 1, p. 210), which add up to 676,950. The Year Two Report gives 172,090 in TESDA training institutions and 581,624 in other public and private institutions (Figure 15, p. 305), which add up to 753,714. The Final Report says "only 802,218 individuals were enrolled" in 2020 (p. 329). None of the reports compares its figure with the others.

## Money and governance

The post on [whether the Philippines is spending enough on education](https://nash.com.ph/blog/philippine-education-spending-edcom-ii) covers spending in depth. Five points matter for the comparison.

**Share of GDP.** The Year One Report says spending rose from 2.7% of GDP in the time of the first EDCOM to 3.6% in 2014–2022, "with the highest-to-date investment occurring in 2017 at 3.9%" (p. 274). The Year Two Report says the Philippines "allocates an average of 3.2%" (p. 32), "an average of 3.2% of the GDP in the last 10 years" (p. 349), and that spending peaked "at 4.0% of the GDP in 2017" before averaging 3.7% (p. 351). The Final Report returns to 3.6% for 2014–2022 (pp. 345, 360, 362) and gives 3.9% for 2025 (pp. 362, 494). The Year One figure is government expenditure, citing the World Bank; the Year Two figures describe the education budget. None of the reports reconciles the averages.

For 2026 the Final Report gives 4.4% (pp. 346, 362) and, elsewhere, 4.5% (pp. 76, 362, 366). Its Figure 1 (p. 346) reprints the bars of the Year Two Report's Figure 13 (p. 350) for 2000 to 2025 and adds a bar for 2026.

**Share of the national budget.** The Year One Report gives 17.0% in 2023 and 16.0% in the proposed 2024 budget (p. 274). The Year Two Report's Figure 13 prints 19.6% for 2000 and 12.8% for 2010 (p. 350). The National Education Plan's baseline is 16.5% (p. 495).

**Cumulative spending per learner.** The Year One and Year Two Reports both give USD 11,000 per learner up to age 15, against a benchmark of about USD 50,000 (Year One Report, pp. 275–276; Year Two Report, p. 353). The Year One text says its comparison uses "2017 per student spending" (p. 275). The Final Report gives two other figures from other sources: USD 8,474 in 2018 and USD 11,303 in 2022, "merely 10% of the OECD average" (p. 345), and USD 3,500 for "per-student spending (ages 6-15)" averaged over 2014–2022 (Table 2, p. 362). It also repeats USD 11,000, dated to 2018, in the essay "Beyond Spending" (p. 418). Its essay also reuses two Year Two figures for 2022, PHP 18,066 per primary learner and PHP 48,688 per student in state universities and colleges, which the Year Two Report's Figure 16 labels as adjusted for inflation (Year Two Report, p. 352; Final Report, p. 417).

**Peer comparisons.** Malaysia is at 4.2% of GDP in the Year One Report (2018, p. 274) and in the Final Report's synthesis (p. 345), but at 3.6% (2023) in the National Education Plan's World Bank list (p. 494). The difference is the year and source of the comparison.

**Interagency bodies.** The Year One Report counted "at least 68 interagency bodies" created in the absence of a coordinating body (p. xxxiv; p. 263). The Year Two Report revised this: "The Commission highlighted at least 68 interagency bodies in its Year One Report, but further desk research has surfaced the count to be, in fact, over a hundred" (p. 324). The Final Report prints several counts. Its governance synthesis, citing EDCOM II's 2025 report, describes "the sixty-eight overlapping interagency bodies" (p. 347), and a recommendation speaks of "the more than 68 interagency bodies" (p. 352). Another page says DepEd "has since updated this number to 261 interagency bodies (DepEd Charter Hearing, October 28,2025)"; the same page gives the Year One count as 63, while the Year One Report says 68 (p. 349). The National Education Plan estimates that the bodies "expanded from 68 to about 130" (p. 498) and takes 130 (2025) as the baseline for target 6.2.2.c, the number of councils and inter-agency bodies rationalized (p. 499).

## Where the Final Report disagrees with itself

The Final Report is long, and several of its chapters and essays have different authors. Some numbers differ between its own pages, and the report does not say which page is right, so cite the page you used.

- **Principals.** It gives 18,576 schools with no principal items (pp. 297, 390), "over 21,800 schools without a principal" (pp. 32, 300), 22,163 items to create (p. 288), 25,656 posts to fill (p. 298), and 23,661 schools with principal items, of which 22,320 were filled (p. 495).
- **Interagency bodies.** It gives 68 (pp. 347, 352), 261 per DepEd (p. 349) and about 130 (pp. 498–499).
- **The 2026 budget.** It gives 4.4% of GDP (pp. 346, 362) and 4.5% (pp. 76, 362, 366).
- **Early-grade reading.** The executive summary says 48.76% of Grades 1 to 3 learners were "not reading at their respective grade levels at the end of SY 2024-2025" (p. 22). The National Education Plan's baseline for the same assessment is 47.74% reading at grade level, or 2,604,392 of 5,455,581 learners (p. 445). The two figures do not add up to 100%, and its equity table labels the same 47.74% "SY 2025-2026" (p. 445).
- **Early childhood participation and tertiary enrollment.** The same 29.12% is dated to 2024 (p. 108) and to 2014–2022 (p. 362); the tertiary rate is 47% on p. 207 and "38%" on p. 404.
- **TVET spending.** It is 0.08% of GDP on pp. 346 and 361, with a call to raise it "to at least 2%" (p. 346). The National Education Plan's baseline is 0.07%, with a target of 0.3% by 2035 (p. 495).
- **Administrative officers.** There are 33,313 on p. 73 and 34,519 on pp. 288 and 452.

## What this means for school heads

- **Cite the report, the page and the data year.** "EDCOM II says 48%" is not a citation. "18,576 schools (48%) had no principal items in SY 2024–2025 (EDCOM II Final Report, 2026, p. 390)" is. A School Improvement Plan, a division presentation or an action research proposal that cites EDCOM II will be read by people who may have seen a different figure.
- **Prefer the newest data, but check its age.** Some Final Report numbers are older than they look. The classroom backlog comes from an inventory as of June 30, 2023, and the learning poverty rate from 2022. If DepEd has released a newer figure, say which one you are using and why.
- **Do not average or cherry-pick.** When two numbers disagree, name the measure behind each. Designated school heads, principal items and filled items are three different counts. Domain 1 of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH) asks for evidence-based leadership: indicator 1.4.1 asks you to "identify relevant research findings from reliable sources". Picking whichever number best supports an argument is the opposite. The [Domain 1 guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-1-leading-strategically) shows how.
- **Expect the same problem in your own data.** The Year Two Report traced its inconsistent principal counts to "varying collection times" in DepEd's systems (p. 258). Your school's enrollment, personnel and facilities records come from systems with different cut-off dates too. Keeping them consistent is part of records management in [Domain 2](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-2-managing-school-operations).
- **Explain definitions to stakeholders.** If a parent-teacher association reads that functional literacy fell sharply between the 2019 and 2024 surveys, explain that the definition changed. Clear, accurate communication with stakeholders is part of [Domain 5](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-5-building-connections), and the [SIP communication plan guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/sip-communication-plan) shows how to present numbers to a community.
- **Read the principal gap as your opportunity.** Whichever count you use, the National Education Plan targets the creation of 6,000 principal items in 2026, 8,000 in 2027 and 8,124 in 2028 (Final Report, p. 495); Figure 5 on p. 288 phases it as 6,000, 8,000 and 8,163. Each new item will need a qualified principal.

## How the NASH may test this

### Question 1

*Indicator 1.4.1, Research and innovation. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.*

You are a head teacher preparing a briefing for your School Governing Council on why your division is prioritizing new principal items. A colleague's draft slide says "55% of schools have no principal (EDCOM II)", which is the Year Two Report's own figure, given without a year. You check the reports. The Year Two Report says 45% of public schools had a designated principal in SY 2023–2024. The Final Report says 18,576 schools (48%) had no principal items in SY 2024–2025. What is the most appropriate action?

- **A.** Average the figures in the two reports and present one combined estimate, so that the council receives a single number instead of two that seem to conflict.
- **B.** Replace the slide's figure with the Final Report's 48%, since the latest report supersedes the earlier ones and the year and the measure need not be shown.
- **C.** Cite the Final Report's 18,576 schools (48%) with its year and page, and note that the Year Two figure measured designated principals a year earlier.
- **D.** Remove the figures from the slide and describe the shortage in words, so that the council is not distracted by numbers that the reports themselves disagree on.

**Answer and explanation**

**Best answer: C.** Points: A = 0, B = 2, C = 3, D = 1.

- **A (0 points, Prestructural).** Averaging two figures that count different things, designated principals and plantilla items, produces a number that no source supports.
- **B (2 points, Multistructural).** Choosing the latest report is right, but dropping the year and the measure leaves the council unable to compare the figure with others it may see.
- **C (3 points, Relational).** This uses the most recent reliable finding, states its year, page and measure, and explains why the earlier figure differs.
- **D (1 point, Unistructural).** Avoiding a wrong number is sensible, but dropping the evidence leaves the council without the facts it needs to support the division's priority.

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to identify relevant research findings from reliable sources, which includes reading what a finding measures. The Year Two Report counts who heads each school in SY 2023–2024 (p. 257), and the Final Report counts plantilla items in SY 2024–2025 (p. 390). The option that takes the latest figure gets the source right but drops the year and measure that make it usable.

*Indicator 1.4.1: Identify relevant research findings from reliable sources in facilitating data-driven and evidence-based innovations to improve school performance.*

*Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; EDCOM II Year Two Report (2025), pp. 29, 257; EDCOM II Final Report (2026), p. 390.*

### Question 2

*Indicator 1.7.1, Monitoring and evaluation processes and tools. Career Stage 1, Conceptual, Moderate.*

A district report sets the 2019 national functional literacy rate of 91.6% beside the 2024 survey finding that almost 30% of Filipinos aged 10 to 64 are functionally illiterate. It concludes that adult literacy collapsed in five years. Which statement best evaluates that conclusion?

- **A.** The conclusion holds, because a fall of that size between two rounds of the same national survey is strong evidence that adult literacy declined.
- **B.** The conclusion is doubtful, because every survey estimate has sampling error, so the district should wait for the next survey round before drawing any conclusion.
- **C.** The conclusion is premature, because the definition changed, so the district should stop using the survey's literacy data for any planning purpose.
- **D.** The conclusion is premature, because the 2024 round required comprehension, so the two rounds can be compared only on the same definition.

**Answer and explanation**

**Best answer: D.** Points: A = 0, B = 1, C = 2, D = 3.

- **A (0 points, Prestructural).** This treats a change in definition as a change in learners and draws a conclusion the data cannot support.
- **B (1 point, Unistructural).** Sampling error is real, but it cannot explain a 20-point difference; the cause is the change in what is measured.
- **C (2 points, Multistructural).** This identifies the definition change but throws away a survey that, on its new definition, is better aligned with what schools teach.
- **D (3 points, Relational).** This names the change in the indicator and the condition under which the two rounds can be compared, which is how a monitoring tool should be read.

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.7.1 asks for knowledge of monitoring and evaluation processes and tools, including what an indicator measures. The Year Two Report records that the new definition requires comprehension and that a PSA simulation showed a 30-point drop in functional literacy from the definition alone (pp. 104–105). The option that rejects the survey sees the definition change but draws the wrong conclusion from it.

*Indicator 1.7.1: Display knowledge and understanding of monitoring and evaluation processes and tools to promote learner achievement.*

*Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; EDCOM II Year Two Report (2025), pp. 104–105; EDCOM II Final Report (2026), p. 53.*

Nothing in this guide reproduces or predicts examination content.

## Frequently asked questions

### What are the three EDCOM II reports?

The Year One Report, *Miseducation: The Failed System of Philippine Education* (2024), diagnosed the system across 28 priority areas (p. lviii). The Year Two Report, *Fixing the Foundations: A Matter of National Survival* (2025), updated the Year One findings and focused on early childhood and the early grades (Year Two Report, p. 42; Final Report, p. 54). The Final Report, *Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026–2035)* (2026), synthesizes three years of evidence and sets out the National Education Plan for 2026–2035 (p. 54).

### How many schools have no principal, according to EDCOM II?

It depends on the report and the measure. The Year Two Report counts 24,916 of 45,199 schools without a principal in SY 2023–2024 (p. 257). The Final Report counts 18,576 schools (48%) with no principal items in SY 2024–2025 (p. 390) and 25,656 principal posts to fill for one principal per school (p. 298). Cite the figure with its page and year.

### Why did the Philippine functional literacy rate drop from 91.6%?

Mainly because the definition changed. The 2019 survey counted every high school graduate as functionally literate (Year One Report, p. 100; Year Two Report, p. 105). The PSA's new definition requires comprehension, and a simulation showed a 30-point drop from that change alone (Year Two Report, pp. 104–105). The 2024 survey used the revised definitions (Final Report, p. 67) and found almost 30% of Filipinos aged 10 to 64 functionally illiterate (Final Report, p. 53).

### Is the classroom backlog still 165,443?

That is DepEd's figure as repeated in the Year Two Report (p. 127) and the Final Report (pp. 25, 183), with a regional breakdown from an inventory as of June 30, 2023 (Final Report, p. 179). An EDCOM II news release of September 23, 2026 reported a backlog of 147,347 classrooms as of September 2025.

### Did the Final Report correct the earlier reports?

It says it does, by "refining earlier findings, correcting outdated data" (p. 54), but it does not list the corrections. Some numbers were updated, such as stunting (p. 90) and ALS coverage (p. 191). Others were carried forward, such as the classroom backlog and the 27 textbook titles. For the interagency bodies, its pages disagree: 68 (pp. 347, 352), 261 per DepEd (p. 349) and about 130 (pp. 498–499).

## Download the data

- [three-reports-newer-data.csv](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/three-reports-newer-data.csv): four indicators with an earlier-report value and a Final Report value, with data years and pages (Year One Report, pp. xxv, 16, 131; Year Two Report, pp. 23, 64; Final Report, pp. 90, 191, 207).
- [three-reports-principal-counts.csv](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/three-reports-principal-counts.csv): four of the counts of the principal gap with their measure and data basis (Year Two Report, p. 257; Final Report, pp. 288, 297, 298, 390).
- [three-reports-blept-pass-rates.csv](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/three-reports-blept-pass-rates.csv): BLEPT elementary and secondary passing rates by year, 2009–2025 (no 2020 value in either report), as printed in each report (Year One Report, p. 179; Final Report, p. 269).
- [three-reports-industry-boards.csv](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/three-reports-industry-boards.csv): TESDA industry boards by report and level (Year One Report, pp. 217, 227; Year Two Report, p. 307; Final Report, p. 309).

The CSVs and charts may be reused only with written permission: email [support@nash.com.ph](mailto:support@nash.com.ph). The numbers themselves come from the EDCOM II reports, which you can cite directly.

## How to cite this post

Llego, M. A. (2026, October 30). *EDCOM II's three reports: How the key numbers changed*. NASH Reviewer. https://nash.com.ph/blog/edcom-ii-reports-key-numbers

The EDCOM II reports:

Second Congressional Commission on Education. (2024). *Miseducation: The failed system of Philippine education* (EDCOM II Year One Report). https://edcom2.gov.ph/media/2024/02/EDCOM-II-Year-One-Report-PDF-022924.pdf

Second Congressional Commission on Education. (2025). *Fixing the foundations: A matter of national survival* (EDCOM II Year Two Report). https://edcom2.gov.ph/media/2025/01/EDCOM-2-Year-2-Report-Fixing-the-Foundations-2025.pdf

Second Congressional Commission on Education. (2026). *Turning point: A decade of necessary reform (2026–2035)* (EDCOM II Final Report). https://edcom2.gov.ph/media/2026/01/EDCOM-II-Y03-for-web-012626_final.pdf

## Sources

- Second Congressional Commission on Education. (2024). [*Miseducation: The Failed System of Philippine Education*](https://edcom2.gov.ph/media/2024/02/EDCOM-II-Year-One-Report-PDF-022924.pdf) (Year One Report). Printed pages used: xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxxi, xxxiv, xlix, l, lviii, 16, 47, 48–49, 77, 81, 83, 95, 100, 104, 129, 131, 178, 179, 210, 217, 226, 227, 263, 274, 275, 276.
- Second Congressional Commission on Education. (2025). [*Fixing the Foundations: A Matter of National Survival*](https://edcom2.gov.ph/media/2025/01/EDCOM-2-Year-2-Report-Fixing-the-Foundations-2025.pdf) (Year Two Report). Printed pages used: 22, 23, 29, 32, 42, 44, 50, 59, 61, 63, 64, 67, 87, 100, 104, 105, 127, 128, 129, 257, 258, 305, 307, 324, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353.
- Second Congressional Commission on Education. (2026). [*Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026–2035)*](https://edcom2.gov.ph/media/2026/01/EDCOM-II-Y03-for-web-012626_final.pdf) (Final Report). Printed pages used: 21, 22, 24, 25, 32, 40–41, 53, 54, 55, 67, 73, 76, 82–83, 85, 90, 108, 131, 139, 151, 152, 178, 179, 183, 191, 207, 269, 288, 297, 298, 300, 309, 329, 345, 346, 347, 349, 352, 360, 361, 362, 366, 372, 390, 404, 416, 417, 418, 424–425, 427, 429, 432, 433, 445, 448, 452, 494, 495, 498, 499, 510–511, 568–569, 592, 618–619.
- EDCOM II. (2026, September 23). [Congress ratifies measure expanding voucher system to cover Kinder to Grade 6](https://edcom2.gov.ph/congress-ratifies-measure-expanding-voucher-system-to-cover-kinder-to-grade-6/). News release; source of the backlog of 147,347 classrooms and the 1,889 schools on shifts.

## The EDCOM II series

The reports:

- [What EDCOM II Achieved, 2023-2025: Laws, Budgets, Policies](https://nash.com.ph/blog/edcom-ii-accomplishments-2023-2025)
- EDCOM II's Three Reports: How the Key Numbers Changed (this post)
- [EDCOM II Final Report: Guide for Aspiring School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/edcom-ii-final-report)
- [National Education Plan 2026-2035: Guide for School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/national-education-plan-2026-2035)
- [100 Years After the Monroe Report: Education Commissions](https://nash.com.ph/blog/monroe-report-100-years-edcom-ii)
- [Is the Philippines Spending Enough on Education?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/philippine-education-spending-edcom-ii)
- [Education Data, Transparency and Research: EDCOM II](https://nash.com.ph/blog/education-data-transparency-research-edcom-ii)

Learners and learning:

- [Mass Promotion and Lost Instructional Time: EDCOM II](https://nash.com.ph/blog/mass-promotion-instructional-time-edcom-ii)
- [PISA, TIMSS, SEA-PLM and the NAT: What EDCOM II Found](https://nash.com.ph/blog/pisa-timss-sea-plm-nat-edcom-ii)
- [Mother Tongue After RA 12027: Language of Instruction](https://nash.com.ph/blog/language-of-instruction-ra-12027-edcom-ii)
- [Why DepEd Bought Only 27 Textbook Titles in 2012-2023](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-textbook-shortage-edcom-ii)
- [RA 12080, Bullying and School Mental Health: EDCOM II](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-mental-health-bullying-ra-12080-edcom-ii)
- [RA 11650 and Learners With Disabilities: EDCOM II Findings](https://nash.com.ph/blog/learners-with-disabilities-ra-11650-edcom-ii)
- [Senior High School and Jobs: EDCOM II Workforce Findings](https://nash.com.ph/blog/senior-high-school-jobs-edcom-ii)

Schools, teachers and governance:

- [Teacher Workload and Accountability: EDCOM II Findings](https://nash.com.ph/blog/teacher-workload-accountability-edcom-ii)
- [Local School Boards and the Special Education Fund](https://nash.com.ph/blog/local-school-board-special-education-fund)
- [Local Education Models in EDCOM II: What the Evidence Shows](https://nash.com.ph/blog/local-education-reform-models-edcom-ii)
- [Education in the Bangsamoro: EDCOM II Findings for BARMM](https://nash.com.ph/blog/bangsamoro-education-barmm-edcom-ii)

*Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: EDCOM II Year One Report (2024), Year Two Report (2025) and Final Report (2026); EDCOM II news release of September 23, 2026. Charts may be reused only with written permission from support@nash.com.ph.*

---

© 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. All rights reserved. You may quote up to 100 words from this article with the author's name, its title and a link. In research, cite it as: Llego, M. A. (2026, October 30). *EDCOM II's Three Reports: How the Key Numbers Changed*. NASH Reviewer. https://nash.com.ph/blog/edcom-ii-reports-key-numbers. Any other reuse of the article, its charts or its data needs written permission: email support@nash.com.ph. Terms of Service: https://nash.com.ph/terms#website-content-and-data