# 100 Years After the Monroe Report: Education Commissions

The 1925 Monroe Survey, the commissions that followed, the problems EDCOM II still finds a century later, and what it says must change this time.

This is the Markdown copy of [100 Years After the Monroe Report: Education Commissions](https://nash.com.ph/blog/monroe-report-100-years-edcom-ii), an article on the NASH Reviewer Blog by Mark Anthony Llego, published Oct 30, 2026, updated Nov 4, 2026. Topics: Aspiring school heads. NASH Reviewer is an independent practice platform not affiliated with DepEd, BHROD, or NEAP.

In 1925 a survey team led by Paul Monroe of Teachers College in New York published *A Survey of the Educational System of the Philippine Islands*, the first major assessment of Philippine schools. A century later, the Final Report of EDCOM II opens with an epigraph it attributes to Paul Monroe's 1925 survey: "Unless reforms are carried out with consistency and permanence, the same deficiencies will reappear." The sections below answer four questions. What did the Monroe Survey find? Which commissions and reviews came after it? Which problems keep coming back? And what does EDCOM II say must be different this time? They end with the learners all this is for, as the Final Report profiles them.

The guide is written for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH) and for researchers who need page-level citations. EDCOM II is the Second Congressional Commission on Education, created by Republic Act No. 11899. The guide draws on its three reports: the Year One Report, *Miseducation* (2024); the Year Two Report, *Fixing the Foundations* (2025); and the Final Report, *Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026–2035)* (2026). The Final Report closes with an epilogue titled "Reflecting on Philippine Education, 100 Years After the Monroe Report".

## Key findings

- **The Monroe Survey's warnings still read as current.** The Final Report says the 1925 survey found that only 40% of Grade 4 children could read at the expected level. It also "pointed to weak teacher preparation, an overcrowded curriculum, and the persistent disadvantage of rural communities" (Final Report, p. 52). In 2024, almost 30% of Filipinos aged 10 to 64 were functionally illiterate. The report adds that the absolute number struggling with functional literacy, "11.8 million in 2025", is greater than the "10.3 million in 1991" (p. 53).
- **Twelve reviews in a century.** The Final Report's timeline lists 12 commissions, surveys and reviews from 1925 to 2022 (pp. 594–595). Four of them were legislative bodies and two were presidential commissions.
- **Similar diagnoses, review after review.** The Final Report says the diagnoses "echoed one another": "the need to lengthen the basic education cycle, improve teacher preparation, expand vocational and technical pathways, reform governance, and secure adequate and equitable financing". Analysts called these recommendations "tiresome in their repetition" (p. 592).
- **Filipino legislators paid for the first survey and then answered it.** They approved 100,000 pesos for the survey, 60,000 more than first allotted. Nine American experts led it, and 13 research associates, most of them Filipino, were primarily "relegated to doing 'routinary work'" (p. 621). A joint committee of senators and representatives then wrote its own reply (pp. 621–622).
- **EDCOM I broke the cycle once.** The first Congressional Commission on Education underpinned the creation of CHED and TESDA and the trifocal structure (p. 593). At the time, only 65.7 of every 100 children reached Grade 6 (p. 603), and the education department resisted several key proposals (p. 602).
- **EDCOM II's answer is continuity.** It names three design pillars, among them a permanent Technical Secretariat "to provide continuity and expertise" (p. 597). It sets a ten-year plan for 2026 to 2035 (p. 54) and warns that "Education cannot restart every three or six years" (p. 615).
- **Dropout at the entry grades today.** In SY 2024-2025, 8.32% of Grade 11 enrollees dropped out, against 2.89% in Grade 1 and 3.65% in Grade 7 (pp. 580–581).

## What the Monroe Survey was

The survey began in law. Act No. 3162, approved on March 8, 1924, created "a Board of Educational Survey composed of three members to be appointed by the Secretary of Public Instruction". It was to make "a complete and comprehensive study and survey of education in the Philippine Islands", covering "public and private institutions of every kind and grade", and to report to the Legislature with recommendations. The act set aside "not to exceed forty thousand pesos". Act No. 3196, passed later in 1924, raised the ceiling to "one hundred thousand pesos".

The Final Report's epilogue adds the Filipino side. Filipino educators and legislators, among them Camilo Osias, advocated for "an impartial and thorough survey of the educational institutions and educational work in the Philippines". Legislators approved 100,000 pesos, "exceeding the initial allocation by 60,000". Published in 1925, the survey was "the most comprehensive assessment of Philippine education undertaken during American colonial rule". Paul Monroe of Teachers College led it. Nine American experts directed the work, and thirteen research associates, "the majority of whom were Filipino", did mostly "routinary work" (Final Report, p. 621).

### What it found, as the EDCOM II reports record it

The three reports record the survey's findings under seven headings:

- **Reading.** "Only 40% of Grade 4 children could read at the expected level" (Final Report, p. 52).
- **Teachers and curriculum.** The survey "pointed to weak teacher preparation, an overcrowded curriculum, and the persistent disadvantage of rural communities" (p. 52).
- **Classrooms and teachers' workload.** The Year One Report traces three issues to "the 1925 Monroe Survey Report": "insufficient classrooms, subpar teaching quality, and overburdening teachers with nonteaching tasks" (Year One Report, pp. l–li).
- **Facilities.** The epilogue quotes the survey itself: "Despite the rapid expansion of the public school system after the American occupation, facilities did not keep pace with the demand for education" (Final Report, p. 625).
- **Centralization.** The Year One Report calls school-based management "the response of DepEd to the issue of excessive centralization that the Monroe Survey noted as early as the 1920s" (Year One Report, p. 300).
- **Private schools.** The Year Two Report cites the survey's "finding that most private schools were of substandard quality". The Legislature of the 1920s still "resisted calls for stricter regulation" and "opposed subsidies for private education, prioritizing provision of free public elementary education" (Year Two Report, p. 331).
- **National aims.** The survey's writers described the country's educational vision as "rather dimly conceived without sufficient basis in experience" (Final Report, p. 622).

### The Filipino reply: the 1926 joint committee

The survey did not end the conversation. "After noticing apparent 'defects' in the survey's processes and findings, Filipino politicians formed a joint legislative committee to study and contextualize the report" (p. 621). The committee of senators and representatives found the survey team weak in "agricultural and vocational education" (pp. 621–622). It also found that the team had not consulted Filipino education leaders. Asked by Osias whether the commission had conferred with him, Gabriel Mañalac, the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Education, answered: "No, sir, they did not. That is one of the things I had in mind as one of the errors" (p. 622).

Mañalac still saw value in the report. "There are many good points in the report which we want to take advantage of," he said. Among them were a language of instruction, teacher preparation programs, school infrastructure and "a learning system that meets the needs of Filipinos". The epilogue adds: "These points continue to be priority areas that the current Philippine education system aims to address" (p. 622).

The committee then wrote its own chapter, "Educational Aims and Objectives", across "twenty-four single-spaced pages". It set out the aim of "a politically and economically efficient, *independent* democracy" (p. 622). The epilogue reads the reply as Filipino policymakers' "resolve to assert themselves as the primary architects of the Philippine education system" (p. 622).

## The commissions and reviews that followed

The Final Report's *Reflections on Reform* chapter has a timeline of commissions, surveys and reviews on Philippine education (Figure 1, pp. 594–595). It has 12 entries from 1925 to 2022. Figure 1 below redraws it and colors each entry by type of body.

![Dot timeline of twelve reviews of Philippine education from 1925 to 2022: the Monroe Survey (1925), the Joint Legislative Committee report (1926), the Prosser Survey (1930), the UNESCO Survey (1949), the Senate Special Committee on private schools (1951), the Swanson Survey (1960), the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education (1969), Project Soutele (1975), EDCOM I (1991), the Philippine Education Sector Study (1999), PCER (2000) and EDCOM II (2022). Four were legislative bodies, two were presidential commissions and six were surveys or studies.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/monroe-reviews-timeline.u6uZTJ3d_Z1wRW7e.webp)

*Figure 1. Twelve commissions, surveys and reviews of Philippine education, 1925 to 2022, by type of body (inferred from each review's name and pp. 621–624). The Final Report credits its timeline to Magno (2010). Data: EDCOM II Final Report (2026), Figure 1, pp. 594–595. Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/monroe-reviews-timeline.png) or [its data (CSV)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/monroe-reviews-timeline.csv).*

The reports mention more reviews than the timeline shows. Table 1 combines them, with what each report says the review found or did.

*Table 1. Reviews of Philippine education named in the EDCOM II reports, 1925 to 2026*

| Year | Review | What the reports say | Pages |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1925 | Monroe Survey | Low reading levels, weak teacher preparation, an overcrowded curriculum, rural disadvantage, centralization, poor private schools | FR 52, 621–622, 625; Y1 l–li, 300; Y2 331 |
| 1926 | Joint Legislative Committee report | The Legislature's reply to the Monroe Survey, with a chapter on the aims of education | FR 594–595, 621–622 |
| 1927 | Economic Survey Committee | Recommended improving vocational education | FR 625 |
| 1930s | Prosser Survey (1930); "Quezon surveys" | Vocational education; both listed among the diagnoses that "echoed one another" | FR 592, 594–595, 625 |
| 1949 | UNESCO Mission | "There is a language problem"; more effective elementary education; surveys for long-range planning; stronger teacher education; "Delegation of administrative authority to provinces and chartered cities". It did not assess technical education | FR 594–595, 623 |
| 1951 | Senate Special Committee on Educational Standards of Private Schools | No description printed | FR 594–595 |
| 1958 | National Board of Education report | Many recommendations "left unattended due to insufficient funding, weak public support, and resistance to change" | FR 623–624 |
| 1960 | Swanson Survey | Led by J. Chester Swanson with a joint Filipino and American team; "stronger teachers, more educational materials, a consistent plan for language, and the money needed to make these happen"; deep inequities | FR 52, 624 |
| 1969–1970 | Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education (PCSPE) | Created by Executive Order No. 202 (1969); found imbalances, among them between expectations and standards, facilities and enrollment, graduates and manpower needs, and the location of schools and regional needs | FR 592, 594–595, 624 |
| 1975 | Project Soutele | Called for "a total, radical, and continuing reevaluation of the elementary education system" | FR 594–595 |
| 1988; 1999 | "The World Bank's Philippine Education Sector Study (1988)" in the essay; "The Philippine Education Sector Study (PESS)" at 1999 in the timeline | The 1988 study is listed among the diagnoses that "echoed one another"; the reports do not say whether the two are the same study | FR 592, 594–595 |
| 1990–1991 | First Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM I) | 378 experts, 18 provinces, 13 regional centers; teacher quality, a common language of instruction, reorganization, relevance and more funds | FR 593, 603, 624 |
| 1998–2000 | Presidential Commission on Educational Reform (PCER) | A vision for 2020 including "Acquisition by every Filipino, 12 years old and above, of universal, basic education" | Y1 lii; Y2 399; FR 594–596 |
| 1999–2020 | Third Elementary Education Project (1999), Education for All plans, Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA, 2006), Sulong EduKalidad (2020) | "Nonetheless, reforms have not taken root" (Y1); "often constrained by fragmented implementation, bureaucratic resistance, and weak political follow-through" (FR) | Y1 lii; FR 596 |
| 2022 | Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II) | Created by Republic Act No. 11899 | FR 597 |
| 2026 | EDCOM II Final Report and National Education and Workforce Development Plan, 2026–2035 | "The first unified decadal roadmap for education in modern Philippine history" | FR 54 |

*FR = Final Report (2026); Y1 = Year One Report (2024); Y2 = Year Two Report (2025).*

### A note on dates and names

The reports date some reviews by the year they began and others by the year they reported, and one pair may be two different studies:

- **The 1969 commission:** created in 1969 by Executive Order No. 202 (p. 624), with its findings dated 1970 (pp. 592, 594–595).
- **PCER:** the Year One Report dates the commission to 1998 (p. lii), and the Year Two Report dates its report, *Philippine Agenda for Educational Reform*, to 2000 (p. 399), the year the Final Report's timeline uses (pp. 594–595).
- **EDCOM I:** "convened" and "established" in 1990 (pp. 571, 572; also "EDCOM I, 1990", p. 593), while its report, *Making Education Work*, is cited as 1991 (p. 593), the year in the timeline of reviews and the epilogue (pp. 594–595, 619, 624).
- **Philippine Education Sector Study:** the essay names "the World Bank's Philippine Education Sector Study (1988)" (p. 592), and the timeline lists "The Philippine Education Sector Study (PESS)" at 1999 (pp. 594–595). The reports do not say whether these are the same study.

Between the reviews came the reforms. The Final Report's Figure 16, a timeline of DepEd's restructuring, runs from Act No. 74 in 1901 to Executive Order No. 433 in 2005, through Batas Pambansa 232 (1982), trifocalization by Republic Acts No. 7722 and 7796 (1994) and Republic Act No. 9155 (2001). Its verdict: "a department repeatedly restructured yet persistently unable to achieve its core objectives" (pp. 386–387). The Year One Report lists the access reforms: compulsory primary education in 1940, compulsory education to Grade 6 in 1953, free public high school in 1989, compulsory Kindergarten in 2012, Grades 11 and 12 in 2013, and free tuition in state colleges and universities in 2017 (Year One Report, p. l).

## What keeps coming back

Figure 2 sets six of the reviews against eight problems. A filled dot means the EDCOM II reports name the problem among that review's findings. An empty dot means they do not tie it to that review, which is not proof that the review ignored it. The Final Report also says, of the reviews from Monroe to the 1988 sector study together, that "the diagnoses echoed one another" on the cycle's length, teacher preparation, vocational pathways, governance and financing (p. 592). Grades 11 and 12, which lengthened the cycle, were finally added in 2013 (Year One Report, p. l). The CSV gives the words and page behind every filled dot.

![Dot matrix of eight problems against six reviews (Monroe 1925, UNESCO 1949, Swanson 1960, PCSPE 1969-70, EDCOM I 1990-91, EDCOM II reports 2024-26). Classrooms and facilities are tied to all six. Teacher quality and language of instruction are tied to all except PCSPE. EDCOM I and EDCOM II are recorded against all eight problems, the Monroe Survey against six and PCSPE against two.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/monroe-recurring-problems.DKt7tetZ_Z1mr62y.webp)

*Figure 2. Problems named by six reviews, as the EDCOM II reports record their findings. Only statements tied to one review are counted, and the evidence for each cell is in the CSV. Data: EDCOM II Final Report (2026), pp. 52–53, 67, 267, 385, 387, 572, 580–581, 584, 594–596, 600, 603 and 621–625; Year One Report (2024), pp. l–li, 125 and 300. Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/monroe-recurring-problems.png) or [its data (CSV)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/monroe-recurring-problems.csv).*

Table 2 puts the Monroe Survey's findings next to what EDCOM II reports a century later.

*Table 2. Problems flagged in 1925 that EDCOM II still finds*

| Problem | Monroe Survey, 1925 (as the reports record it) | EDCOM II reports, 2024–2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Reading | "Only 40% of Grade 4 children could read at the expected level" (FR 52) | Almost 30% of Filipinos aged 10 to 64 functionally illiterate in 2024, "including nearly 1 in 3 high school graduates and 1 in 5 college graduates"; the absolute number struggling with functional literacy, "11.8 million in 2025", is greater than the "10.3 million in 1991" (FR 53) |
| Teacher preparation | "Weak teacher preparation" (FR 52); "subpar teaching quality" (Y1 li) | "Long-standing challenges in teacher education, training, and welfare remain" (FR 267) |
| Teachers' non-teaching load | "Overburdening teachers with nonteaching tasks" (Y1 li) | Teachers "burdened with over 50 administrative tasks and 160 forms daily" (FR 600). EDCOM I had already asked for such tasks to be minimized, "if not totally eliminated" (Y1 193) |
| Classrooms | "Insufficient classrooms" (Y1 li); facilities "did not keep pace with the demand for education" (FR 625) | "An estimated backlog of 165,443 classrooms for decongestion, replacement, and repair" (FR 25) |
| Curriculum | "An overcrowded curriculum" (FR 52) | Priority area: "Validation of the K to 10 ... curriculum toward decongestion" (FR 67); curricula "updated at most every 10-12 years" (FR 615) |
| Centralization | "Excessive centralization" (Y1 300) | RA 9155's vision of decentralized governance "remains largely unrealized" (FR 385) |
| Rural disadvantage | "The persistent disadvantage of rural communities" (FR 52) | "Equity gaps persist" (FR 596) |
| Private schools | "Most private schools were of substandard quality" (Y2 331) | "the quality and quantity of private schools remain a challenge", though public-private complementarity has made headway (FR 625) |
| Language of instruction | Mañalac's list begins with "establishing a language of instruction" (FR 622) | "Medium/language of instruction" is one of EDCOM II's priority issues (FR 67) |

*FR = Final Report (2026); Y1 = Year One Report (2024); Y2 = Year Two Report (2025).*

The classroom backlog and the teacher-workload findings are covered in depth in the [guide to the EDCOM II Final Report](https://nash.com.ph/blog/edcom-ii-final-report). The centralization finding is the subject of [RA 9155 at 25: Why Shared Governance Has Not Happened](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ra-9155-shared-governance-decentralization).

### Why the problems return

The reports do not blame the diagnoses. The repetition is "a sign not of analytical failure but of a political and institutional system unable to act" (Final Report, p. 592). The Final Report quotes scholars who describe the cycle: "diagnose systemic failures, propose structural solutions, achieve partial implementation, and repeat" (p. 592). After EDCOM I, reforms "too often became 'projectized'", and "Reforms that are bold at inception often dissipate in implementation" (p. 596). The epilogue puts it most plainly: many reforms "have faltered not for lack of vision but for want of institutional continuity, coherence, and grounded execution" (p. 626).

The Final Report does not read the century as unbroken failure. "For much of the 20th century, the Philippine public school system stood as the country's benchmark for quality", and today's crisis is "a historically recent decline shaped by fragmented governance, chronic underinvestment, and the gradual erosion of the systems that once sustained excellence" (p. 53).

The Year One Report names the causes inside the system. Scholars "have criticized the sector's inability to implement reforms due to frequent changes in leadership, resistance to change within the government, and the agency's 'culture of obeisance'". There is also an outside cause: "our demand for education rapidly outpaced our means to provide it—a recurring theme since the postwar era" (Year One Report, p. liii).

## EDCOM I: the one time the cycle broke

The Final Report calls the First Congressional Commission on Education "a rare moment the cycle was broken". It "exploited a unique policy window: broad public demand for reform, strong congressional leadership, and a reform coalition that could translate evidence into law". Its report, *Making Education Work*, "underpinned sweeping systemic reforms—CHED, TESDA, the trifocal governance structure". Its authors wrote: "Many of our proposals can be carried out by executive action, but the key ones require legislation" (p. 593).

The executive pushed back. The then Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) "resisted several of its key recommendations". Secretary Isidro Cariño argued that a new TESDA was unnecessary because "each agency should adhere to its original mandate", and he called the proposed CHED "both impractical and unrealistic" (p. 602). DECS said its own 1990 Decentralization Program, implemented in January 1991, had "adequately responded" to EDCOM I's governance concerns (p. 603).

The structures it won did not fix learning. Trifocalization "(unintendedly) fragmented governance and blurred accountability", and "organizational restructuring has often delivered administrative change, not classroom change" (p. 603). The chapter's lesson: "fixing structures alone does not fix learning", and "governance reform is necessary, but never sufficient" (p. 603).

*Table 3. EDCOM I and EDCOM II compared, as the Final Report describes them*

| | EDCOM I (1990–1991) | EDCOM II (created 2022; reports 2024–2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Members | Senators and representatives (FR 624) | Ten members, five from each house, with the education committee chairs as co-chairpersons (FR 598) |
| Reach | 378 experts, 18 provinces, 13 regional centers (FR 624) | 11 quarterly meetings, 30 hearings, 44 workshops and consultations, 9 site visits, 3 benchmarking missions (FR 604); 102 commissioned studies (FR 605) |
| Learners at the time | 65.7 of every 100 children reached Grade 6 (FR 603) | 8.32% of Grade 11 enrollees dropped out in SY 2024-2025 (FR 580–581) |
| Executive response | DECS resisted TESDA and CHED (FR 602) | Two commissioners appointed Secretary of Education and Secretary of TESDA by 2024; in Year Three a CHED commissioner closely engaged with its work became CHED chair (FR 601–602) |
| Coordination | A high-level coordinating body was envisioned but never permanently set up (Y1 xxxiv) | Education and Workforce Development Group created by Administrative Order No. 36, August 13, 2025, chaired by the President (FR 349) |

## What EDCOM II says must be different this time

EDCOM II describes itself as "both critique and continuity" (Final Report, p. 598). It also concedes that "commissions themselves are symptomatic of a deeper problem: the absence of institutionalized mechanisms to regularly assess and correct the course of the education system" (p. 598). Seven differences stand out in the reports.

1. **Turn evidence into law, not only into reports.** EDCOM II was "meant to be a comprehensive, legislative engine for reform" (p. 597), and "The design has allowed reforms to move quickly from evidence to law" (p. 599). [What EDCOM II Achieved, 2023-2025](https://nash.com.ph/blog/edcom-ii-accomplishments-2023-2025) lists the results it shares with Congress and the agencies.
2. **Keep the executive inside the reform.** In contrast with EDCOM I, two EDCOM II commissioners joined the Cabinet as Secretary of Education and Secretary of TESDA, "enabling reform ideas to move directly into agency practice" (p. 601). After both houses adopted Concurrent Resolution No. 28 in June 2025, the Office of the President created the Education and Workforce Development Group through Administrative Order No. 36 on August 13, 2025. The President chairs it (p. 349).
3. **Build continuity into the institution.** EDCOM II rests on "three foundational pillars": joint leadership of the Senate and House education chairs, "a permanent and robust Technical Secretariat to provide continuity and expertise", and an Advisory Council (p. 597). Its outputs are kept in a repository (p. 605), and it asks the country to "build and retain a corps of education policy specialists" because "Reform requires stability and institutional memory" (p. 601).
4. **Judge reform by learning, not by structure.** "Over three decades of education reform show a clear lesson: fixing structures alone does not fix learning" (p. 603). The Conclusion calls "independent, regular, credible, and transparent assessment of learning outcomes" "the nation's best defense against complacency", and says monitoring and evaluation must "become a permanent habit of governance, not an afterthought" (p. 615).
5. **Plan for a decade, beyond political cycles.** The National Education and Workforce Development Plan for 2026 to 2035 is "the first unified decadal roadmap for education in modern Philippine history" (p. 54). "Education cannot restart every three or six years." Having found "many policies untouched since the 1990s following the first EDCOM", the report asks for "a programmed, evidence-based review of curriculum and key policies" (p. 615). The [National Education Plan guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/national-education-plan-2026-2035) explains the plan's milestones.
6. **Appoint leaders on merit.** Transformation depends "on appointing leaders at all levels of the system for their proven integrity, competence, and commitment ... rather than for political expediency" (p. 626). Real change comes "when leadership is stable, monitoring is institutionalized, and learning from experience becomes part of governance itself" (p. 626).
7. **Prioritize.** "Reform demands the discipline to prioritize". The report says the country must invest first in "nutrition, early childhood care and development, and foundational literacy" (p. 616).

The Commission is candid about its own limits. "Its wide mandate produced 28 priorities, making focus difficult." "Mission creep was a constant risk." And "three Senate Presidents served during its term, each bringing changes in commissioners" (p. 606). Whether the country "should rely on periodic 'big-bang' commissions every generation or embed these functions within permanent institutions remains an open question" (p. 598). Its third lesson is that "reform is never finished". Without continued commitment, its recommendations "risk meeting the fate of many past commissions—well-intentioned insights left unimplemented" (pp. 610–611).

After the Final Report, Congress chose to keep the commission going. Republic Act No. 12315, approved on March 4, 2026, amends RA 11899. After its first three years, the Commission "shall continue to operate for an additional period of two (2) years". The two years are for further research and consultations and "to exercise oversight over the implementation of the National Education and Workforce Development Plans".

## Who is the Filipino learner today

The Final Report's chapter *The Filipino Learner Today* (pp. 569–591) describes the learners the plan is for. The [National Education Plan guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/national-education-plan-2026-2035) summarizes the whole chapter, including the youth's aspirations, the reasons they leave school and the six hindrances the chapter lists.

**A once-only generation.** "This generation represents the largest youth population the Philippines may ever see." "For the first time, the country's future workforce and its present learners are essentially the same group" (p. 569). The working-age population is projected to peak at 66% to 69% between 2045 and 2055, so "The country, therefore, has less than a generation to harness this advantage" (p. 570).

**The same sorting, a century apart.** In 1925 the Monroe Survey pointed to "the persistent disadvantage of rural communities" (p. 52). In 1991 EDCOM I called the school system "a giant sorting machine, which keeps children from well-off city families and throws out children from rural and poor families". The Final Report then gives today's figures for the first grade of each key stage (pp. 580–581).

![Bar chart of the share of enrollees who dropped out in SY 2024-2025: Grade 1 2.89 percent (59,755 of 2,070,358), Grade 7 3.65 percent (78,252 of 2,141,724) and Grade 11 8.32 percent (169,836 of 2,041,601).](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/monroe-entry-grade-dropout.DJeGq24V_LPWCu.webp)

*Figure 3. Dropouts at the entry grade of each key stage, SY 2024-2025. Data: EDCOM II Final Report (2026), pp. 580–581. Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/monroe-entry-grade-dropout.png) or [its data (CSV)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/monroe-entry-grade-dropout.csv).*

| Grade | Dropouts | Enrollees | Dropout rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 1 | 59,755 | 2,070,358 | 2.89% |
| Grade 7 | 78,252 | 2,141,724 | 3.65% |
| Grade 11 | 169,836 | 2,041,601 | 8.32% |

"These entry grades mark critical transition points where many learners fall behind or leave altogether" (pp. 580–581). The chapter's answer is a system that "starts by meeting youth where they are, not where averages place them" (p. 591).

## What this means for school heads

The Final Report hands its work to schools in so many words: "The Reports are not endpoints, but milestones. What follows belongs to school leaders, supervisors, educators, and communities who will turn strategies into sustained progress" (pp. 610–611). For a school head, the century-long lesson is about keeping a good reform alive after the people who started it have left. That is PPSSH Domain 1, Leading Strategically, explained in [PPSSH Domain 1: Leading Strategically](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-1-leading-strategically).

1. **Read your school's own history before you start something new.** The national cycle of "diagnose ... propose ... partial implementation, and repeat" (p. 592) also runs inside a school whenever a new school head starts over. Before changing a program, gather the past School Improvement Plans, Annual Implementation Plans, School Report Cards and monitoring records, and note what was tried and with what result. The SIP guidebook in [DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2015/09/29/do-44-s-2015-guidelines-on-the-enhanced-school-improvement-planning-sip-process-and-the-school-report-card-src/) already asks the planning team to read "three-year data" and ask whether the school improved, stagnated or worsened (PPSSH indicators 1.2.1 and 1.2.2).
2. **Write things down for your successor.** EDCOM II saw three Senate Presidents and changes of commissioners (p. 606). It relied on a permanent Technical Secretariat "to provide continuity and expertise" and on a repository that preserves its outputs (pp. 597, 605). A school's version is a handover file: the SIP, the data, the decisions and their reasons, the partners and the open commitments. DO 44, s. 2015 asks planners to document meetings and activities "to also have a record of the processes you have done during planning which will inform your succeeding projects and activities".
3. **Keep few priorities and see them through.** EDCOM II's 28 priorities made "focus difficult" (p. 606), and its Conclusion says reform "demands the discipline to prioritize" (p. 616). In school terms, that means a SIP that carries a few Priority Improvement Areas through its three years rather than a long list rewritten every year.
4. **Make monitoring a habit, not a report.** The Final Report wants monitoring and evaluation to "become a permanent habit of governance, not an afterthought" (p. 615). In a school, that means reviewing the same learning measures every quarter and adjusting (PPSSH indicators 1.7.1 and 1.7.2). The [guide to the EDCOM II Final Report](https://nash.com.ph/blog/edcom-ii-final-report) explains the reading and achievement measures EDCOM II uses.
5. **Use the authority you already have.** The Monroe Survey noted "excessive centralization" in the 1920s (Year One Report, p. 300). The Year One Report, citing Bautista and colleagues, still describes a culture in which "no policy or practice in the lower levels of the hierarchy may change or take place unless there is an explicit DepEd memo from the Central Office that allows it" (Year One Report, p. 246). [RA 9155 at 25](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ra-9155-shared-governance-decentralization) sets out what a school head can decide today without waiting for a memo.
6. **Build a coalition that will outlast you.** EDCOM II's second lesson is that "coalitions matter" (pp. 610–611). In a school, the coalition is the School Governance Council, the PTA, the barangay and local partners, who remember the plan when staff change. The [School Governance Council, PTA and partners guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-governance-council-pta-partnerships) covers the current rules.
7. **Watch the entry grades.** Grade 1, Grade 7 and Grade 11 are "critical transition points where many learners fall behind or leave altogether" (pp. 580–581). The Final Report asks for "early-warning mechanisms that connect attendance data with psychosocial support" (p. 588). A school head can set one up with the attendance records the school already keeps.

## How the NASH may test this

### Practice item 1

*Indicator 1.2.2, School planning and implementation. Career Stage 2, Situational, Moderate.*

You are newly assigned as school head of a junior high school in the second year of its School Improvement Plan. Your predecessor started a Grade 7 reading program. The planning team's monitoring shows that the share of Grade 7 learners reading at the frustration level fell from 38 to 29 percent in one year. The program has no written guide, and its coordinator retires in March. A colleague from another district urges you to replace it with the program her school uses. What is the most appropriate action?

- **A.** Replace the program with your colleague's model next quarter, since a new school head should bring in an approach that has already worked well in another school.
- **B.** Keep the program, have the coordinator and teachers write down its procedures before March, and review its targets with the planning team at the next SIP review.
- **C.** Keep the program as it is and ask the retiring coordinator to stay on as a volunteer, so that it continues to run in the same way after March.
- **D.** Keep the program and write its procedures yourself from the coordinator's files, then present the finished guide to the teachers at the next LAC session.

**Answer and explanation**

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

- **A (0 points, Prestructural).** The school's own data show the program working, and replacing it with another school's model discards that evidence and restarts the cycle the EDCOM II reports describe.
- **B (3 points, Relational).** This keeps a program the data support, turns one person's knowledge into a written guide before the coordinator leaves, and reviews the targets through the planning team, which is how a plan continues past a change of staff.
- **C (1 point, Unistructural).** Keeping the program is right, but its survival still depends on one person, so the school's memory of the program leaves with the coordinator.
- **D (2 points, Multistructural).** The program is kept and documented, but the school head writes the guide alone and presents it as finished, leaving out the teachers who run the program and the planning team that owns the plan.

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 1.2.2 asks the school head to develop and implement school plans with the planning team. The EDCOM II Final Report finds that reforms have "faltered not for lack of vision but for want of institutional continuity" (p. 626) and that "Reform requires stability and institutional memory" (p. 601). The option that documents the program alone gets continuity right but bypasses the team that has to carry it forward.

*Indicator 1.2.2: Develop and implement with the planning team school plans aligned with institutional goals and policies.*

*Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020; DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015; EDCOM II Final Report (2026), pp. 601, 626.*

### Practice item 2

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

You are a head teacher drafting a proposal to reduce dropouts in your school's Grade 11. You have four sources. The EDCOM II Final Report says 8.32% of Grade 11 enrollees dropped out nationally in SY 2024-2025. The Year Two Report shows that, among young respondents not attending school, more cited work than cost in 2022. A social media post says most senior high school learners leave because of cost. Your school's learner records cover the past three years. Which use of these sources best supports the proposal?

- **A.** Build the proposal on the social media post, since it names a cause, and add the national figure from the Final Report to show that the problem is large.
- **B.** Use the national figure to show the scale of the problem and your school's records to show its size locally, then check the reasons your own learners gave before choosing an intervention.
- **C.** Use the national figure and the Year Two Report's finding that more young people cite work than cost, and adopt a work-related intervention on that basis alone.
- **D.** Use only your school's records to describe the problem, since a national figure cannot tell you anything about the learners of a single school.

**Answer and explanation**

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

- **A (0 points, Prestructural).** A social media post is not a reliable source, and building the proposal on the cause it claims skips both the research and the school's own records.
- **B (3 points, Relational).** This uses the reliable national finding for scale, the school's own records for the local picture, and the learners' actual reasons to choose the intervention, which is what evidence-based innovation means.
- **C (2 points, Multistructural).** Both sources are reliable, but national survey shares, gathered for a different purpose (nonparticipation in higher education), cannot show why your own learners left, so the intervention may not fit the school.
- **D (1 point, Unistructural).** Local records matter most for the decision, but ignoring reliable national research leaves the proposal without context or comparison.

**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. The EDCOM II Final Report shows 8.32% of Grade 11 enrollees dropping out, against 2.89% in Grade 1 and 3.65% in Grade 7 (pp. 580–581). The Year Two Report's survey figures come from its higher-education chapter, as reasons for nonparticipation, and show more young people citing work than cost (p. 166). The option that relies on national findings alone gets the sources right but skips the school's own learners.

*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 Final Report (2026), pp. 580–581; EDCOM II Year Two Report (2025), p. 166.*

Nothing in this guide reproduces or predicts examination content.

## Frequently asked questions

### What was the Monroe Survey of 1925?

It was *A Survey of the Educational System of the Philippine Islands*, published in 1925 and led by Paul Monroe of Teachers College in New York. Act No. 3162 of 1924 created the Board of Educational Survey that ran it. The EDCOM II Final Report calls it "the most comprehensive assessment of Philippine education undertaken during American colonial rule" (p. 621).

### What did the Monroe Report find?

As the EDCOM II reports record it, only 40% of Grade 4 children could read at the expected level, and the survey pointed to weak teacher preparation, an overcrowded curriculum and rural disadvantage (Final Report, p. 52). The Year One Report adds insufficient classrooms, teachers burdened with non-teaching tasks and excessive centralization (pp. l–li, 300). The Year Two Report adds that most private schools were of substandard quality (p. 331).

### What is the difference between EDCOM I and EDCOM II?

EDCOM I, the First Congressional Commission on Education, was established in 1990; its 1991 report *Making Education Work* underpinned CHED, TESDA and the trifocal system (Final Report, pp. 572, 593). EDCOM II was created in 2022 by Republic Act No. 11899 after the 2018 PISA results (pp. 574, 597). It was "deliberately designed to mirror the systemic ambition of EDCOM I while addressing its limitations", with a permanent Technical Secretariat and closer work with the executive (pp. 597, 601).

### Which education commissions came before EDCOM II?

The Final Report's timeline lists eleven before EDCOM II: the Monroe Survey (1925), the Joint Legislative Committee report (1926), the Prosser Survey (1930), the UNESCO Survey (1949), the Senate Special Committee on private schools (1951) and the Swanson Survey (1960). The rest are the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education (1969), Project Soutele (1975), EDCOM I (1991), the Philippine Education Sector Study (1999) and PCER (2000) (pp. 594–595). Table 1 above adds the others the reports mention.

### Why does the EDCOM II Final Report end with the Monroe Report?

The epilogue, written for EDCOM II by Anthony Garciano and Camille Ungco (Final Report, p. 50), marks the survey's centenary. It argues that a century of surveys shows "less of a linear progression than a cycle of recurring challenges and aspirations" (p. 619). It closes by asking "What story will the next hundred years tell?" (p. 626).

## Download the data

- [monroe-reviews-timeline.csv](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/monroe-reviews-timeline.csv): the 12 commissions, surveys and reviews in the Final Report's timeline, with year, name, type of body (inferred from each review's name) and source pages (Final Report, pp. 594–595 and 621–625).
- [monroe-recurring-problems.csv](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/monroe-recurring-problems.csv): 48 rows, one for each problem and review, showing whether the reports tie the problem to that review's findings, with the printed words, page and notes on loose fits (Final Report, pp. 52–53, 67, 267, 385, 387, 572, 580–581, 584, 594–596, 600, 603, 621–625; Year One Report, pp. l–li, 125, 300).
- [monroe-entry-grade-dropout.csv](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/edcom-ii/monroe-entry-grade-dropout.csv): dropouts, enrollees and dropout rates for Grades 1, 7 and 11, SY 2024-2025 (Final Report, pp. 580–581).

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). *100 Years After the Monroe Report: Education Commissions*. NASH Reviewer. https://nash.com.ph/blog/monroe-report-100-years-edcom-ii

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. (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) (EDCOM II Final Report). Epigraph (front matter); pp. 25, 50, 52–54, 67, 267, 349, 385–387, 569–591 (*The Filipino Learner Today*), 592–611 (*Reflections on Reform*), 614–616 (Conclusion) and 619–626 (Epilogue).
- 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) (EDCOM II Year One Report). Pp. xxxiv, l–lii, liii, 125, 193, 246, 300.
- 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) (EDCOM II Year Two Report). Pp. 166, 331, 399.
- Philippine Legislature. (1924). [Act No. 3162, An Act to Create a Board of Educational Survey ...](https://ldr.senate.gov.ph/legislative-issuance/act-no-3162), approved March 8, 1924. Senate of the Philippines Legislative Digital Resources.
- Philippine Legislature. (1924). [Act No. 3196, amending Section 2 of Act No. 3162](https://ldr.senate.gov.ph/legislative-issuance/act-no-3196). Senate of the Philippines Legislative Digital Resources.
- Congress of the Philippines. (2026). [Republic Act No. 12315, An Act Extending the Term of the Second Congressional Commission on Education](https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2026/03/04/republic-act-no-12315/), approved March 4, 2026. Official Gazette.
- Department of Education. (2015). [DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, Guidelines on the Enhanced School Improvement Planning (SIP) Process and the School Report Card (SRC)](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2015/09/29/do-44-s-2015-guidelines-on-the-enhanced-school-improvement-planning-sip-process-and-the-school-report-card-src/).
- Department of Education. (2020). [DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2020/09/07/september-7-2020-do-024-s-2020-national-adoption-and-implementation-of-the-philippine-professional-standards-for-school-heads/).

## 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](https://nash.com.ph/blog/edcom-ii-reports-key-numbers)
- [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 (this post)
- [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); Acts No. 3162 and 3196 (1924); Republic Act No. 12315 (2026); DepEd Orders No. 44, s. 2015 and No. 024, s. 2020. 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). *100 Years After the Monroe Report: Education Commissions*. NASH Reviewer. https://nash.com.ph/blog/monroe-report-100-years-edcom-ii. 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