The very purpose of the study was to find out the assessment of the learners on the nongraded instructional system and their level of achievement in Mathematics, Science, and English. The study used the descriptive-correlational method with the survey questionnaire as which has three (3) major indicators: the Teaching/Learning Approach, Role of Facilitators, and Evaluation System. Descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation and Pearson Product Moment or Correlation Analysis were also utilized. The learners assessed the nongraded instructional system in terms of teaching/learning approach, facilitator, and evaluation system. The assessment of learners on the nongraded instructional system shows that they agree with a mean of 4.05 on the teaching/learning approach; 4.15 on the role of facilitators; and 4.02 on the evaluation system, with standard deviations that show homogeneous responses among learners. The level of achievement of learners shows a mean of 30.86 in Mathematics; 29.32 in Science; and 34.11 in English, with standard deviations that show variations of scores by about 6 to 9 points. No significant relationship exists between assessing the nongraded instructional system and the learners achievement in Mathematics, Science, and English. It is recommended that the curriculum be retained because individualized instruction is efficient and that constant upgrading and evaluation be conducted to identify its strengths and limitations. The administrators may guide in realizing novel activities or programs that might lead to the vision that through the years, the unique system of instruction in the country would somehow influence for the higher achievement of the learners in totality.

1. Alarcon, O. F. R. B. (1975). The Angelicum experience. Quezon City, Philippines: Angelicum University.
2. Amiran, M. R., & Jones, B. F. (1982). Toward a new definition of readability. Educational Psychologist, 17(1), 13–30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528209529241
   
3. Angelicum College. (2002). Learner’s handbook. Quezon City, Philippines.
   
4. Arlin, M. (1984). Time, equality, and mastery learning. Review of Educational Research, 54(1), 65–86. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1170398
   
5. Ballesteros, M. P. (1998). Development and evaluation of modules in science and technology I (Unpublished Masters Thesis). Marikina, Philippines: Marikina Institute of Science and Technology.
   
6. Bautista, V. (1978). Development and evaluation of module in elementary science VI (Unpublished Masters Thesis). Marikina, Philippines: Marikina Institute of Science and Technology.
   
7. Block, J. H., & Airasian, P. W. (1971). Mastery learning: Theory and practice (J. H. Block, Ed.). New York, NY: Holt Rinehart & Winston.
   
8. Boonphadung, S. (2017). Critical thinking development: A comparison between the efficiency of mixed technique and a series of mini-lecture, KWL/T-P-S and presentation. Journal of Advances in Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(3), 95-104. doi:https://doi.org/10.20474/jahss-3.2.3
   
9. Carin, A. A. (1997). Teaching science through discovery (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730560228
   
10. Charoensuk, V., & Jaipetch, D. (2017). Attitudes toward English: A study of first-year students at king mongkuts university of technology north bangkok. Journal of Advances in Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(1), 42-57. doi:https://doi.org/10.20474/jahss-3.1.4
    
11. Cotton, K., et al. (1993). Nongraded primary education: School improvement research series. Washington, DC, WA: ERIC. 
12. Creager, J. G., & Murray, D. L. (1971). The use of modules in college biology teaching. Washington, DC, WA: ERIC.
    
13. Cresencio, A. L. (2001). The effect of writing prompt on the mathematics anxiety and achievement of first year high school students (Unpublilshed Masters Thesis). Manila, Philippines: Philippine Normal University.
    
14. De-Lara, J. (1994). The relationship of the use and non-use of calculators to college students academic achievement and attitudes in mathematics (Unpublished Masters Thesis). Londonderry, UK: Immaculate Conception College.
    
15. Gaerlan, J. E., Limpingco, D., & Tria, G. E. (2000). General psychology. Quezon City, Philippines: Ken Incorporated.
    
16. Gaustad, J. (1992). Nongraded education: Mixed-age, integrated, and developmentally appropriate education for primary children. OSSC Bulletin, 35(7).
    
17. Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York, NY: Perennial Library/Harper & Row Publishers.
    
18. Hon, H. (1990). A study of mastery learning and its effects on science achievement retention, attitudes and selfconcept with special focus on educationally disadvantaged students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hong Kong, China: University of Hong Kong.
    
19. Hunter, M. (1992). How to change to a nongraded school. Washington, DC, WA: ERIC.
    
20. Lardizabal, A. S. (1991). Principles and methods of teaching. Quezon City, Philippines: Phoenix Publishing House.
    
21. Levin, H. M. (1987). Accelerated schools for disadvantaged students. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 19–21.
    
22. Pavan, B. N. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 22–25.
    
23. Siti Fatimah, A. Z., Norhafizah, M. S., Noryanti, M., Rozieana, K., & Hassan, R. G. (2015). A study of students performance in calculus and their attitudes toward the course using tripartite model. International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 1(1), 31-36. doi:https://doi.org/10.20469/ijhss.20005
    
24. Slavin, R. (1994). Effective classrooms, effective schools: A research base for reform in latin american education. In J. Puryear (Ed.), Education, equity and economic competitiveness in the Americas: An Inter-American dialogue project (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: OAS.
25. Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1984). Toward a theory of cognitive aptitude for learning from instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 347. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.3.347
    
26. Untivero, C. E. (2002). Modular approach in teaching foods and nutrition in ys 7 in Angelicum College: An assessment. (Unpublished Masters Thesis). Manila, Philippines: Philippine Normal University.

Cresencio, M. A. (2018). The nongraded instructional system and learners academic achievement. International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 4(1), 33-46. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.20469/ijhss.4.10004-1