Sie sind auf Seite 1von 44

Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form

Name of Employee:

KENT FRANCIS N. LAYAGUIN

Position:
Teacher II
Review Period:
2015 - 2016
Bureau/Center/Service/Division:
MFO

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

DepEd Davao City


TO BE FILLED DUTRING PLANN
Weight per
KRA

40%
(10%)

MFO

TeachingLearning
Process

Prepared
lesson plans
and daily logs
of activities
including
appropriate
adequate and
updated
instructional
materials with
in the rating
period

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

Weight per
KRA

(10%)

Facilitated
learning in the
school through
functional
lesson plans,
daily logs and
innovative
teaching
strategies

MFO

KRAs

OBJECTIVES
Initiated
discipline of
students
including
classroom
rules,
guidelines and
individual and
group task with
in the rating
period

TIMELINE

Weight per
KRA

(10%)

guidelines and
individual and
group task with
in the rating
period

Monitored
attendance,
diversity and
appreciation,
safe, positive
and motivating
environment,
overall physical
atmosphere,
cleanliness and
orderliness of
classrooms
including
proper waste
disposal daily

MFO

Pupils/
Student
Outcomes

Monitored
and evaluated
and maintained
pupils/students'
progress with in
the rating
period

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

(10%)

30%
(10%)

TIMELINE

Weight per
KRA

Pupils/
Student
Outcomes

Conducted
Remediation/en
richment
programs to
improve
performance
indicators

(5%)

Maintain
Updated
Student's/Pupil'
s Records

MFO

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

Attained the
required GSA
for grade level
and learning
areas

(5%)

TIMELINE

Weight per
KRA

(10%)

5%
Conducted

(2 %)

Conducted
periodic PTA
meetings/
conferences

Community
Involvement

Visited
parents of
students
needing
academic
monitoring/
follow-up with
in the rating
period

(2 %)

Undertaken/initi
ated
projects/events/
activities with
external
funding/
sponsorship
within the
target date

MFO

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

Professional
Growth and
Development

Conducted
problem/
classroom
based action
research
Initiated/
Participated in
co-curricular/
school activities
with in the
rating period

Produced
publications/
creative work
for school
paper/division
publication with
in the target
date

(1 %)

TIMELINE

Weight per
KRA

15%
(5 %)

(5 %)

(5%)

Supports to
Admin
Administrative
function

10%

* To get the score, the rating is multiplied by th weight assigned


________________

RATER/MASTER TEACHER

mmitment and Review Form (IPCRF) for Teachers With Ancillary Servic
Name of Rater:
Position:
Date of Review:

vao City
TO BE FILLED DUTRING PLANNING
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines)
5 - Outstanding
All daily lesson plans had the following objective, subject matter, procedures, evaluation and assignment
Each part had a full description of what to do with an example
Objective was specific, measurable, attainable, result-oriented and time-bound
100% and above developed high order thinking skills
Attained 100% and above of the desired learning competencies
100% and above based on the budget of work
4 - Very Satisfactory
Had four of the five parts of lesson plan
Each part of the partial description of what to do with an example
Objective was stated with 1 behavioral indicator is missing
88.00% -99.99 % developed high order thinking skills
Attained 88%-99.99% of the desired learning competencies
88.00% -99.99 % based on the approved budget of work
3 - Satisfactory
Had 3 of the five parts
Each part had a partial description with out example
Objectives was stated with 3-4 behavioral indicator missing
75.00% -87.99% develop high order thinking skills
Attained 75.00% -87.99% of the desired learning competencies
75.00% -87.99% based on the approved budget of work
2 - Unsatisfactory
Had 2 of the five parts
Each part had no description with out example
Objectives was stated with 1-2 behavioral indicator missing
51-99% develop high order thinking skills
1 - Poor
Had 1 of the five parts
Each part had no description with out example
Objectives was stated without behavioral indicator missing
1% -62.99 % develop high order thinking skills
50% and below attained the desired learning competencies
50% and below based on the approved budget of work

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines)


5 - Outstanding
The teacher established challenging and measurable goal/s for student learning that is aligned with the (DepEd
standards or Philippine Elementary Learning Competencies (PELC) or the Philippine Secondary Learning Competencies
(PSLC))curriculum

The goal reflected a range of student learner needs.


Has provided individual activities for a 100% and above of the classes handled for the rating period
Teaching methods and strategies elicited 100% and above interaction from a class
Inductive method/deductive method was 100% and above used in teaching a lesson
Cooperative learning strategies was 100% and above effective when used
ICT integration is 100% and above evident
Results of student observations/appraisal are 100% and above used as basis for follow-up.
4 - Very Satisfactory
The teacher developed a measurable goal for student learning that is aligned with the (DepEd standards or
Philippine Elementary Learning Competencies (PELC) or the Philippine Secondary Learning Competencies
(PSLC))curriculum
The teacher explained the importance of the goal and the appropriateness to students.
Has provided individual activities for a 88%-99.99% of the classes handled for the rating period
Teaching methods and strategies elicited 88%-99.99% interaction from a class
Inductive method/deductive method was 88%-99.99% used in teaching a lesson
Cooperative learning strategies was 88%-99.99% effective when used
ICT integration is 88%-99.99% evident
Results of student observations/appraisal are 88%-99.99% used as basis for follow-up.
3 - Satisfactory
The teacher clearly communicated a focus for student learning that is aligned with the (DepEd standards or
Philippine Elementary Learning Competencies (PELC) or the Philippine Secondary Learning Competencies
(PSLC))curriculum
Has provided individual activities for a 75.00%-87.99% of the classes handled for the rating period
Teaching methods and strategies elicited 75.00%-87.99% interaction from a class
Inductive method/deductive method was 75.00%-87.99% used in teaching a lesson
Cooperative learning strategies was 75.00%-87.99% effective when used
ICT integration is 100-114% evident
Results of student observations/appraisal are 75.00%-87.99% used as basis for follow-up.
2 - Unsatisfactory
The teacher did not have a clear focus for student learning
Has provided individual activities for a 63.00%-74.99% of the classes handled for the rating period
Teaching methods and strategies elicited 63.00%-74.99% interaction from a class
Inductive method/deductive method was 63.00%-74.99% used in teaching a lesson
Cooperative learning strategies was 63.00%-74.99% effective when used
ICT integration is 63.00%-74.99% evident
Results of student observations/appraisal are 63.00%-74.99% used as basis for follow-up.
1 - Poor
The teacher did not have a clear focus for student learning or the objective is too general to guide lesson planning
or the objective is inappropriate for students
Has provided individual activities for a 1% -62.99 % of the classes handled for the rating period
Teaching methods and strategies elicited 1% -62.99 % interaction from a class
Inductive method/deductive method was not used in teaching a lesson
Cooperative learning strategies was never used
ICT integration is not evident
Results of student observations/appraisal are not used as basis for follow-up.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines)


5 - Outstanding
Pupils were 100% and above guided in the observation of classroom rules and the guidelines as evidenced by
descriptive rating in the report card/journal
4 - Very Satisfactory
Pupils were 115-129% guided in the observation of classroom rules and the guidelines as evidenced by descriptive
rating in the report card/journal
3 - Satisfactory
Pupils were 75.00% -87.99% guided in the observation of classroom rules and the guidelines as evidenced by
descriptive rating in the report card/journal

2 - Unsatisfactory
Pupils were 63.00%-74.99% guided in the observation of classroom rules and the guidelines as evidenced by
descriptive rating in the report card/journal
1 - Poor
Pupils were not guided in the observation of classroom rules and the guidelines as evidenced by descriptive rating
in the report card/journal
5 - Outstanding
Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal were 100% and above maintained
Attendance checking was 130% and above systematically carried out
4 - Very Satisfactory
Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal were 88.00% -99.99 % maintained
Attendance checking was 88.00% -99.99 % systematically carried out
3 - Satisfactory
Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal were 75.00% -87.99% maintained
Attendance checking was 100-114% systematically carried out
2 - Unsatisfactory
Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal were 63.00%-74.99% maintained
Attendance checking was 63.00%-74.99% systematically carried out
1 - Poor
Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal were 1% -62.99 % consistently
maintained
Attendance checking was 1% -62.99 % systematically carried out
5 - Outstanding
Evidence showed that the teacher purposely plans assessments and varies assessment choices to match the
different student needs, abilities, and learning styles.
Class record reflected the bases of 100% and aboveof pupils' ratings in all classess/subject areas handled
Students' portfolio contained 130% and above of his accomplishment
Table of specifications is 130% and above prepared for tests that require it
Table of specifications showed 130% and above congruence between content and skills test
Test questions were 130% and above logiclly sequenced
Pretest and Posttest were 130% and above administered in all classes/subject area (Supported by analysis report on
subject area per class/grade level)

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines)


4 - Very Satisfactory
The teacher explained the various uses and limitations of the different kinds of assessments/test. Evidence showed
that student needs and avenues for growth were clearly identified.
Class record reflected the bases of 88.00% -99.99 % of pupils' ratings in all classess/subject areas handled
Students' portfolio contained 115-129% of his accomplishment
Table of specifications is 115-129% prepared for tests that require it
Table of specifications showed 115-129% congruence between content and skills test
Test questions were 115-129% logiclly sequenced
Pretest and Posttest were 115-129% administered in all classes/subject area (Supported by analysis report on
subject area per class/grade level)
3 - Satisfactory
The eveidence of more than one measure of student performance but there is difficulty in analyzing data to inform
instuctional planning and delivery
Students' portfolio contained 75.00% -87.99% of his accomplishment
Table of specifications is 75.00% -87.99% prepared for tests that require it

Table of specifications showed 75.00% -87.99% congruence between content and skills test
Test questions were 75.00% -87.99% logiclly sequenced
Pretest and Posttest were 75.00% -87.99% administered in all classes/subject area (Supported by analysis report on
subject area per class/grade level)
2 - Unsatisfactory
The teacher planned instructions without analyzing student learning data
Class record reflected the bases of 63.00%-74.99% of pupils' ratings in all classess/subject areas handled

Students' portfolio contained 51-99% of his accomplishment


Table of specifications is63.00%-74.99% prepared for tests that require it
Table of specifications showed 63.00%-74.99% congruence between content and skills test
Test questions were63.00%-74.99% logiclly sequenced
Pretest and Posttest were 63.00%-74.99% administered in all classes/subject area (Supported by analysis report on
subject area per class/grade level)
1 - Poor
No evidence of student monitoring or evaluation of student progress
Class record reflected the bases of 50% and below of pupils' ratings in all classess/subject areas handled

Students' portfolio contained 50% and below of his accomplishment


Table of specifications is not prepared for tests that require it
Table of specifications did not show congruence between content and skills test
Test questions were not logiclly sequenced
Pretest and Posttest were never administered
5 - Outstanding
Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 100% and above who need it
4 - Very Satisfactory
Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 88.00% -99.99 % who need it
3 - Satisfactory
Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to75.00% -87.99% who need it
2 - Unsatisfactory
Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 63.00%-74.99% who need it
1 - Poor
Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 1% -62.99 % who need it
5 - Outstanding
* All forms are updated every quarter and submitted before the deadline
4 - Very Satisfactory
* 75% of the forms are updated every quarter and submitted above the deadline

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines)


3 - Satisfactory
* 50 % of the forms are updated every quarter and submitted before the deadline
2 - Unsatisfactory
* 25 % of the forms are updated every quarter and submitted above the deadline
1 - Poor
Not even 1 form form is updated
5 - Outstanding
*100% and above GSA
*10 %and above increase in MPS
4 - Very Satisfactory
88.00% -99.99 % GSA
* 7.0% -9.99% increasein MPS
3 - Satisfactory
*75.00% -87.99% MPS/GSA
* 5% - 6.99 increase in MPS
2 - Unsatisfactory
* 63.00%-74.99% GSA
*3.01%-4.99 increase in MPS
1 - Poor
* 1% -62.99 % GSA
* 3% below increase or no increase in MPS
5 - Outstanding
100% and above accomplishment with set agreements met

4 - Very Satisfactory
88.00% -99.99 % of planned meetings producing only set agreements and partial accomplishments
3 - Satisfactory
75.00% -87.99% of planned meetings conducted producing set of agreements
2 - Unsatisfactory
63.00%-74.99% of planned meetings conducted with minimal results
1 - Poor
1% -62.99 % of the planned meetings conducted with no result
5 - Outstanding
100% and above accomplishment of set visits successful interventions
4 - Very Satisfactory
88.00% -99.99 % accomplishment of visits with partial success in implementation of interventions
3 - Satisfactory
75.00% -87.99% accomplishment of visits with suggested planned interventions
2 - Unsatisfactory
63.00%-74.99% accomplishments of visits with planned interventions
1 - Poor
1% -62.99 % accomplishments with no interventions
5 - Outstanding
100% and above project accomplishment with full documentation report on completion
4 - Very Satisfactory
88.00% -99.99 % project accomplishment with partial completion
3 - Satisfactory
75.00% -87.99% project initiative only with no completion report
2 - Unsatisfactory
63.00%-74.99% project initiative only with no completion report
1 - Poor
No project/event/activity initiated
5 - Outstanding
1 action research conducted with full documentation and adapted by two or more teachers

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines)


4 - Very Satisfactory
1 action research conducted with full documentation and adapted by oneteachers
3 - Satisfactory
1 action research conducted with full documentation
2 - Unsatisfactory
Identified classroom/learning problems with research proposals
1 - Poor
No Action research conducted
5 - Outstanding
Initiated at least 2 co-curricular/ school activities with documented results
4 - Very Satisfactory
Initiated and participated in co-curricular/ school activities with documented results
3 - Satisfactory
Participated in most co-curricular/ school activities with documented results
2 - Unsatisfactory
Participation only with out document results
1 - Poor
No participation in school activities
5 - Outstanding
Produced publication/creative work published in National Circulation/ DepEd Post/ CSC Newsletters and similar
publications
4 - Very Satisfactory
Produced publication/creative work published in regional publications
3 - Satisfactory
Produced publication/creative work published in division publications
2 - Unsatisfactory
Produced publication/creative work published in school papers
1 - Poor
Unpublished work produced
Academic /Non -Academic

1. Lead the formulation of the School/District English/Reading Program coordinated with the teachers,Grade level
teachers or District ReadingCoordinators.
2. Consolidated needed school's reports for submission to the District/Division Office.
3. Kept records and consolidated reading performance of pupils in the school
4. Conduct Assessment and evaluation of the implementation of the school's reading program
5. Undertaken/Initiated activities seminars/conference/trainings andother activities.
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN
1. Conducted and updated/monitored quarterly and annually the reports / inventory needed.
2. Consolidated and submitted property reports
3. Systematically files report records
CANTEEN MANAGER
1. Implemented correctly canteen shares following the Deped Order No. 17, S.2-110
2. Monitored sanitation and food safety
GUIDANCE COORDINATOR
1. Designated and implemented appropriate school/district Guidance Program and Guidance Services:
a. Organizational Chart
b. Reading Assessment

assigned
_______________________________
Ratee

eachers With Ancillary Services


MARLENE M. PASTORIZA
Master Teacher I
April 22, 2016
TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION

Efficiency,Timelines)

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATIN
G

SCORE*

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATIN
G

SCORE*

ocedures, evaluation and assignment

time-bound

Efficiency,Timelines)

dent learning that is aligned with the (DepEd


the Philippine Secondary Learning Competencies

es handled for the rating period


on from a class
eaching a lesson
n used

d as basis for follow-up.

t is aligned with the (DepEd standards or


e Secondary Learning Competencies

ateness to students.

handled for the rating period


from a class
ching a lesson
sed
basis for follow-up.

t is aligned with the (DepEd standards or


e Secondary Learning Competencies

es handled for the rating period


on from a class
teaching a lesson
en used

d as basis for follow-up.

es handled for the rating period


on from a class
eaching a lesson
n used
as basis for follow-up.

objective is too general to guide lesson planning

s handled for the rating period


from a class
sson

ollow-up.

Efficiency,Timelines)

m rules and the guidelines as evidenced by

s and the guidelines as evidenced by descriptive

m rules and the guidelines as evidenced by

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATIN
G

SCORE*

m rules and the guidelines as evidenced by

he guidelines as evidenced by descriptive rating

e disposal were 100% and above maintained


ut

e disposal were 88.00% -99.99 % maintained


out

e disposal were 75.00% -87.99% maintained

e disposal were 63.00%-74.99% maintained


ut

e disposal were 1% -62.99 % consistently

d varies assessment choices to match the

s in all classess/subject areas handled


nt
quire it
en content and skills test

es/subject area (Supported by analysis report on

Efficiency,Timelines)

rent kinds of assessments/test. Evidence showed

gs in all classess/subject areas handled

t
ent and skills test

ject area (Supported by analysis report on

but there is difficulty in analyzing data to inform

ent
equire it

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATIN
G

SCORE*

en content and skills test

ses/subject area (Supported by analysis report on

g data

classess/subject areas handled

uire it
n content and skills test

es/subject area (Supported by analysis report on

ss

lassess/subject areas handled

nt

nd skills test

o need it

ho need it

o need it

o need it

need it

dline

the deadline

Efficiency,Timelines)
the deadline
the deadline

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATIN
G

SCORE*

s and partial accomplishments

reements

ns

plementation of interventions

nterventions

port on completion

two or more teachers

Efficiency,Timelines)

oneteachers

sults

mented results

results

DepEd Post/ CSC Newsletters and similar

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATIN
G

SCORE*

m coordinated with the teachers,Grade level

/Division Office.
e school
school's reading program
ther activities.

orts / inventory needed.

No. 17, S.2-110


Program and Guidance Services:

OVERAL RATING FOR


ACCOMPLISHMENTS

ALEJANDRO G. CURAY
Principal III

APPROVING AUTHORITY

KENT FRANCIS N. LAYAGUIN

POSITION AND COMPETENCY PROFIL


Department of Education

Postion Title
Parenthetical Title
Office Unit
Reports to
Position Supervised

TEACHER II

MATINA CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SHOOL

JOB SUMMARY

QUALIFICATION STANDA

A. CSC Prescribed Qualifications


Education Bachelor in Elementary Education, Masteral Units (Completed Acad
Experience 5 years of teaching in public school
Eligibility Licensure Examination for Teachers (81%)
Trainings School/District/Division/Region/National trainings/seminars/worksho
B. Preferred Qualifications
Education Bachelor in Elementary Education, Masteral Units (Completed Acad
Experience 5 years of teaching in public school
Eligibility Licensure Examination for Teachers (81%)
Trainings School/District/Division/Region/National trainings/seminars/worksho

KENT FRANCIS N. LAYAGUIN

ROFILE

PCP No. _________

Salary Grade
Effectivity Date
Page/s

RY

ANDARDS

ted Academic Requirements)

s/workshop

ted Academic Requirements)

s/workshop

Revision Code:

12

COMPETENCIES
CORE BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCIES

Self-Management
1

Sets personal goals and direction, needs and development.

Undertakes personal actions and behaviors that are clear and purposive and takes into
account personal goals and values congruent to that of the organization.

Teamwork

###

1
2

Displays emotional maturity and enthusiasm for and is challenged by higher goals

Prioritize work tasks and schedules (through gantt charts, checklists, etc.) to achieve
goals.

Sets high quality, challenging, realistic goals for self and others

4
5

Professionalism and Ethics

Service Orientation

Demonstrates the values and behavior enshrined in the Norms of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for public officials and employee (RA 6713).

Practices ethical and professional behavior and conduct taking into account the impact of
his/her actions and decisions.

Maintains professional image: being trustworthy, regularity of attendance and


punctuality, good grooming and communication.

Makes personal sacrifices to meet the organization's needs.

Acts with a sense pf urgency and responsibility to meet the organization's needs,
improves systems and help others improve their effectiveness.

1
2

###
3
4
5

Result Focus
1

Achieves results with optimal use of time and resources most of the time.

Avoids rework, mistakes and wastage through effective work methods by placing
organizational needs before personal needs.

Delivers error-free outputs most of the time by conforming to standard operating


procedures correctly and consistently. Able to produce very satisfactoy quality of work in
terms of usefulness/acceptability and completeness with no supervision required.

Innovation
1

Expresses a desire to do better and may express frustration at waste or inefficiency. May
focus on new or more precise ways of meeting goals set.

Makes specific changes in the system or in own work methods to

###
4

5 - Role Model; 4 - Consistently demonstrates; 3 - Most of the time demonstrates; 2 - Sometimes demonstrates;

1 - Rarely demonstrates

DEPED RPMS form - DEPED form - For Teache

CORE SKILLS

Accountability

Achievement
1 Enjoys working hard
2

###

Is action-oriented and full of energy for the things he/she sees as challenging

2
3

3 Not fearful of acting with a minimum of planning

4 Seizes more opportunities than others

5 Strategic thinker
Managing Diversity
1 Respects all kinds and classes of people
2

Deals effectively with all races,nationalities, cultures, disabilities, ages and both sexes.

###

3 Support equal and fair treatment and opportunity for all.


4 Applies equal standards and criteria to all classes
5

Manifests cultural and gender sensitivity when dealing with people

5 - Role Model; 4 - Consistently demonstrates; 3 - Most of the time demonstrates; 2 - Sometimes demonstrates;

1 - Rarely demonstrates

Note: These ratings can be used for the developmental plans of the employee.

DEPED RPMS form - DEP

improve performance. Examples may include doing something better, faster, at alower cost, more
efficiently; or improving quality, costumer satisfaction, morale, without setting any specific goal.

mwork
Willingly does his/her share of responsibilty.
Promotes collaboration and removes barriers to teamwork and goal accomplishment across the
organization

###

Applies negotiation principles in arriving at win-win agreements.


Drives consensus and team ownership of decisions.
Works constructively and collaboratively with others and across organizations to accomplish
organizational goals and objectives.

ice Orientation
Can explain and articulate organizational directions, issues and problems.
Takes personal responsibilty for dealing with and/or correcting costumer service issues and
concerns

###

Initiates activities that promotes advocacy for men and women empowerment.
Participates in updating of office vision, mission, mandates & strategies based on DepEd
strategies and directions.
Develops and adopts service improvement programs through simplified procedures that will
further enhance service delivery.

ovation
Examines the root cause of problems and suggests effective solutions. Fosters new ideas,
processes, and suggests bettter ways to do things (cost and/or operational efficiency).
Demonstrates an ability to think "beyond the box". Continuously focuses on improving personal
productivity to create higher value and results.

Promotes a creative climate and inspires co-workers to develop original ideas or solutions.

###
Translates creative thinking into tangible changes and solutions that improve the work unit and
organization.
Uses ingenious methods to accomplish responsibilties. Demonstrates resourcefulness and the
ability to succeed with minimal resources.
1 - Rarely demonstrates

DEPED RPMS form - DEPED form - For Teachers

untability
Can be counted on to excueed goals sucessfully
Steadfastly pushes self and others towards ewsults.

###

Gets things done on time and optimum use of resources.


Builds team spirit
Transacts with transparency.

0VERALL COMPETENCY RATINGS


CORE BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCIES
CORE SKILLS
OVERALL RATING

nstrates;

1 - Rarely demonstrates

DEPED RPMS form - DEPED form - For Teachers

PART III: SUMMARY OF RATINGS FOR


Final Performance Results
Accomplishments of KRAs and Objectives

Employee-Superior Agreement
The signatures below confirm that the employee and his/her superior have agreed to the contents of the p
Name of Employee:
Signature:
Date:

PART IV: DEVELOPMENT PLA

Strengths

Development Needs

RATER

Action Plan

(Recommended Develop
Intervention)

RATEE

TINGS FOR DISCUSSION


Rating

ectives

Adjectival Rating

#REF!

ents of the performance as captured in this form.


Name of Superior:
Signature:
Date:

PMENT PLANS

ed Developmental
rvention)

RATEE

Timeline

Resources Needed

ALEJANDRO G. CURAY

APPROVING AUTHORITY
DEPED RPMS form - DEPED form -For Teacher |

Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form (IPCRF) for


Name of Employee:
Position:
Review Period:
Bureau/Center/Service/Division:

Name of Rater:
Position:
Date of Review:
TO BE FILLED DUTRING PLANNING

MFO

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

Weight
per KRA

40%
(10%)

TeachingLearning
Process

Prepared
lesson plans and
daily logs of
activities
including
appropriate
adequate and
updated
instructional
materials with in
the rating period

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timel

5 - Outstanding
All daily lesson plans had the following objective, subject matter, procedures, eva
assignment
Each part had a full description of what to do with an example
Objective was specific, measurable, attainable, result-oriented and time-bound
100% and above developed high order thinking skills
Attained 100% and above of the desired learning competencies
100% and above based on the budget of work
4 - Very Satisfactory
Had four of the five parts of lesson plan
Each part of the partial description of what to do with an example
Objective was stated with 1 behavioral indicator is missing
88.00% -99.99 % developed high order thinking skills
Attained 88%-99.99% of the desired learning competencies
88.00% -99.99 % based on the approved budget of work
3 - Satisfactory
Had 3 of the five parts
Each part had a partial description with out example
Objectives was stated with 3-4 behavioral indicator missing
75.00% -87.99% develop high order thinking skills
Attained 75.00% -87.99% of the desired learning competencies
75.00% -87.99% based on the approved budget of work
2 - Unsatisfactory
Had 2 of the five parts
Each part had no description with out example
Objectives was stated with 1-2 behavioral indicator missing

51-99% develop high order thinking skills


1 - Poor
Had 1 of the five parts
Each part had no description with out example
Objectives was stated without behavioral indicator missing
1% -62.99 % develop high order thinking skills
50% and below attained the desired learning competencies
50% and below based on the approved budget of work

MFO

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

Weight
per KRA

(10%)

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timel

5 - Outstanding
The teacher established challenging and measurable goal/s for student learning
the (DepEd standards or Philippine Elementary Learning Competencies (PELC) or th
Secondary Learning Competencies (PSLC))curriculum
The goal reflected a range of student learner needs.

Has provided individual activities for a 100% and above of the classes handled fo
Teaching methods and strategies elicited 100% and above interaction from a clas
Inductive method/deductive method was 100% and above used in teaching a les
Cooperative learning strategies was 100% and above effective when used
ICT integration is 100% and above evident
Results of student observations/appraisal are 100% and above used as basis for f
4 - Very Satisfactory
The teacher developed a measurable goal for student learning that is aligned wi
standards or Philippine Elementary Learning Competencies (PELC) or the Philippine
Competencies (PSLC))curriculum
The teacher explained the importance of the goal and the appropriateness to stu

Facilitated
learning in the
school through
functional lesson
plans, daily logs
and innovative
teaching
strategies

Has provided individual activities for a 88%-99.99% of the classes handled for the
Teaching methods and strategies elicited 88%-99.99% interaction from a class
Inductive method/deductive method was 88%-99.99% used in teaching a lesson
Cooperative learning strategies was 88%-99.99% effective when used
ICT integration is 88%-99.99% evident
Results of student observations/appraisal are 88%-99.99% used as basis for follo
3 - Satisfactory
The teacher clearly communicated a focus for student learning that is aligned wi
standards or Philippine Elementary Learning Competencies (PELC) or the Philippine
Competencies (PSLC))curriculum

Has provided individual activities for a 75.00%-87.99% of the classes handled for
Teaching methods and strategies elicited 75.00%-87.99% interaction from a clas
Inductive method/deductive method was 75.00%-87.99% used in teaching a les
Cooperative learning strategies was 75.00%-87.99% effective when used
ICT integration is 100-114% evident
Results of student observations/appraisal are 75.00%-87.99% used as basis for
2 - Unsatisfactory
The teacher did not have a clear focus for student learning

Has provided individual activities for a 63.00%-74.99% of the classes handled fo


Teaching methods and strategies elicited 63.00%-74.99% interaction from a clas
Inductive method/deductive method was 63.00%-74.99% used in teaching a less
Cooperative learning strategies was 63.00%-74.99% effective when used
ICT integration is 63.00%-74.99% evident
Results of student observations/appraisal are 63.00%-74.99% used as basis for fo

1 - Poor
The teacher did not have a clear focus for student learning or the objective is to
lesson planning or the objective is inappropriate for students

Has provided individual activities for a 1% -62.99 % of the classes handled for t
Teaching methods and strategies elicited 1% -62.99 % interaction from a class
Inductive method/deductive method was not used in teaching a lesson
Cooperative learning strategies was never used
ICT integration is not evident
Results of student observations/appraisal are not used as basis for follow-up.

MFO

KRAs

OBJECTIVES
Initiated
discipline of
students
including
classroom rules,
guidelines and
individual and
group task with
in the rating
period

TIMELINE

Weight
per KRA

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timel


5 - Outstanding

(10%) Pupils were 100% and above guided in the observation of classroom rules and th

evidenced by descriptive rating in the report card/journal


4 - Very Satisfactory
Pupils were 115-129% guided in the observation of classroom rules and the guid
by descriptive rating in the report card/journal

3 - Satisfactory
Pupils were 75.00% -87.99% guided in the observation of classroom rules and the
evidenced by descriptive rating in the report card/journal

2 - Unsatisfactory
Pupils were 63.00%-74.99% guided in the observation of classroom rules and the
evidenced by descriptive rating in the report card/journal
1 - Poor

Pupils were not guided in the observation of classroom rules and the guidelines a
descriptive rating in the report card/journal

Monitored
attendance,
diversity and
appreciation,
safe, positive
and motivating
environment,
overall physical
atmosphere,
cleanliness and
orderliness of
classrooms
including proper
waste disposal
daily

Pupils/
Student
Outcomes

Monitored and
evaluated and
maintained

(10%)

30%

5 - Outstanding
Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal we
maintained
Attendance checking was 130% and above systematically carried out
4 - Very Satisfactory
Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal
maintained
Attendance checking was 88.00% -99.99 % systematically carried out
3 - Satisfactory
Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal
maintained
Attendance checking was 100-114% systematically carried out
2 - Unsatisfactory
Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal
maintained
Attendance checking was 63.00%-74.99% systematically carried out
1 - Poor
Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal
consistently maintained
Attendance checking was 1% -62.99 % systematically carried out
5 - Outstanding

we

we

we

we

MFO

Pupils/
Student
Outcomes

Monitored and
evaluated and
maintained
pupils/students'
progress with in
the rating period

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

30%
(10%)

TIMELINE

Weight
per KRA

Evidence showed that the teacher purposely plans assessments and varies asses
match the different student needs, abilities, and learning styles.
Class record reflected the bases of 100% and aboveof pupils' ratings in all classe
handled
Students' portfolio contained 130% and above of his accomplishment
Table of specifications is 130% and above prepared for tests that require it
Table of specifications showed 130% and above congruence between content and
Test questions were 130% and above logiclly sequenced
Pretest and Posttest were 130% and above administered in all classes/subject are
analysis report on subject area per class/grade level)

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timel


4 - Very Satisfactory

The teacher explained the various uses and limitations of the different kinds of a
Evidence showed that student needs and avenues for growth were clearly identifie
Class record reflected the bases of 88.00% -99.99 % of pupils' ratings in all classe
handled
Students' portfolio contained 115-129% of his accomplishment
Table of specifications is 115-129% prepared for tests that require it
Table of specifications showed 115-129% congruence between content and skills
Test questions were 115-129% logiclly sequenced
Pretest and Posttest were 115-129% administered in all classes/subject area (Sup
report on subject area per class/grade level)
3 - Satisfactory
The eveidence of more than one measure of student performance but there is di
data to inform instuctional planning and delivery
Students' portfolio contained 75.00% -87.99% of his accomplishment
Table of specifications is 75.00% -87.99% prepared for tests that require it

Pupils/
Student
Outcomes

Table of specifications showed 75.00% -87.99% congruence between content an


Test questions were 75.00% -87.99% logiclly sequenced
Pretest and Posttest were 75.00% -87.99% administered in all classes/subject ar
analysis report on subject area per class/grade level)
2 - Unsatisfactory
The teacher planned instructions without analyzing student learning data
Class record reflected the bases of 63.00%-74.99% of pupils' ratings in all classes
handled
Students' portfolio contained 51-99% of his accomplishment
Table of specifications is63.00%-74.99% prepared for tests that require it
Table of specifications showed 63.00%-74.99% congruence between content and
Test questions were63.00%-74.99% logiclly sequenced

Student
Outcomes

Conducted
Remediation/enri
chment
programs to
improve
performance
indicators

MFO

KRAs

OBJECTIVES
Maintain
Updated
Student's/Pupil's
Records

(5%)

TIMELINE

Weight
per KRA

(5%)

Pretest and Posttest were 63.00%-74.99% administered in all classes/subject are


analysis report on subject area per class/grade level)
1 - Poor
No evidence of student monitoring or evaluation of student progress
Class record reflected the bases of 50% and below of pupils' ratings in all classes
handled
Students' portfolio contained 50% and below of his accomplishment
Table of specifications is not prepared for tests that require it
Table of specifications did not show congruence between content and skills test
Test questions were not logiclly sequenced
Pretest and Posttest were never administered
5 - Outstanding
Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 100% and above who need it
4 - Very Satisfactory
Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 88.00% -99.99 % who need it
3 - Satisfactory
Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to75.00% -87.99% who need it
2 - Unsatisfactory
Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 63.00%-74.99% who need it
1 - Poor
Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 1% -62.99 % who need it

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timel


5 - Outstanding
* All forms are updated every quarter and submitted before the deadline
4 - Very Satisfactory
* 75% of the forms are updated every quarter and submitted above the deadline
3 - Satisfactory
* 50 % of the forms are updated every quarter and submitted before the deadline
2 - Unsatisfactory
* 25 % of the forms are updated every quarter and submitted above the deadline

Pupils/
Student
Outcomes

Attained the
required GSA for
grade level and
learning areas

(10%)

1 - Poor
Not even 1 form form is updated
5 - Outstanding
*100% and above GSA
*10 %and above increase in MPS
4 - Very Satisfactory
88.00% -99.99 % GSA
* 7.0% -9.99% increasein MPS
3 - Satisfactory

Outcomes

learning areas

10%
Conducted
periodic PTA
meetings/
conferences

(3%)

Visited
parents of
students
needing
academic
monitoring/
follow-up with in
the rating period

(3%)

Community
Involvement

MFO

KRAs

OBJECTIVES
Undertaken/initi
ated
projects/events/
activities with
external funding/
sponsorship
within the target
date

*75.00% -87.99% MPS/GSA


* 5% - 6.99 increase in MPS
2 - Unsatisfactory
* 63.00%-74.99% GSA
*3.01%-4.99 increase in MPS
1 - Poor
* 1% -62.99 % GSA
* 3% below increase or no increase in MPS
5 - Outstanding
100% and above accomplishment with set agreements met
4 - Very Satisfactory
88.00% -99.99 % of planned meetings producing only set agreements and partial a
these
3 - Satisfactory
75.00% -87.99% of planned meetings conducted producing set of agreements
2 - Unsatisfactory
63.00%-74.99% of planned meetings conducted with minimal results
1 - Poor
1% -62.99 % of the planned meetings conducted with no result
5 - Outstanding
100% and above accomplishment of set visits successful interventions
4 - Very Satisfactory
88.00% -99.99 % accomplishment of visits with partial success in implementation o
3 - Satisfactory
75.00% -87.99% accomplishment of visits with suggested planned interventions
2 - Unsatisfactory
63.00%-74.99% accomplishments of visits with planned interventions
1 - Poor
1% -62.99 % accomplishments with no interventions

TIMELINE

Weight
per KRA

(4 %)

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timel

5 - Outstanding
100% and above project accomplishment with full documentation report on comple
4 - Very Satisfactory
88.00% -99.99 % project accomplishment with partial completion
3 - Satisfactory
75.00% -87.99% project initiative only with no completion report
2 - Unsatisfactory
63.00%-74.99% project initiative only with no completion report
1 - Poor

external funding/
sponsorship
within the target
date
Professional
Conducted
Growth and problem/classroo
Development m based action
research

Initiated/
Participated in
cocurricular/school
activities with in
the rating period

Produced
publications/
creative work for
school
paper/division
publication with
in the target
date

20%
(5%)

(10%)

(5%)

No project/event/activity initiated
5 - Outstanding
1 action research conducted with full documentation and adapted by two or more t
4 - Very Satisfactory
1 action research conducted with full documentation and adapted by oneteachers
3 - Satisfactory
1 action research conducted with full documentation
2 - Unsatisfactory
Identified classroom/learning problems with research proposals
1 - Poor
No Action research conducted
5 - Outstanding
Initiated at least 2 co-curricular/ school activities with documented results
4 - Very Satisfactory
Initiated and participated in co-curricular/ school activities with documented results
3 - Satisfactory
Participated in most co-curricular/ school activities with documented results
2 - Unsatisfactory
Participation only with out document results
1 - Poor
No participation in school activities
5 - Outstanding
Produced publication/creative work published in National Circulation/ DepEd Post/ C
similar publications
4 - Very Satisfactory
Produced publication/creative work published in regional publications
3 - Satisfactory
Produced publication/creative work published in division publications
2 - Unsatisfactory
Produced publication/creative work published in school papers
1 - Poor
Unpublished work produced

* To get the score, the rating is multiplied by th weight assigned

____________________________

_________________________

RATER/MASTER TEACHER

RATEE

CRF) for Teachers

ency,Timelines)

ocedures, evaluation and

time-bound

TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION

ACTUAL RESULTS

RATING

SCORE
*

ency,Timelines)

dent learning that is aligned with


es (PELC) or the Philippine

es handled for the rating period


on from a class
eaching a lesson
n used

d as basis for follow-up.

t is aligned with the (DepEd


the Philippine Secondary Learning

ateness to students.

handled for the rating period


from a class
ching a lesson
sed
basis for follow-up.

t is aligned with the (DepEd


the Philippine Secondary Learning

es handled for the rating period


on from a class
teaching a lesson
en used

d as basis for follow-up.

es handled for the rating period


on from a class
eaching a lesson
n used
as basis for follow-up.

ACTUAL RESULTS

RATING

SCORE
*

objective is too general to guide

s handled for the rating period


from a class
sson

ollow-up.

ency,Timelines)

m rules and the guidelines as

s and the guidelines as evidenced

m rules and the guidelines as

m rules and the guidelines as

he guidelines as evidenced by

e disposal were 100% and above

ut

e disposal were 88.00% -99.99 %

out

e disposal were 75.00% -87.99%

e disposal were 63.00%-74.99%

ut

e disposal were 1% -62.99 %

ACTUAL RESULTS

RATING

SCORE
*

d varies assessment choices to

s in all classess/subject areas

nt
quire it
en content and skills test

es/subject area (Supported by

ency,Timelines)

rent kinds of assessments/test.


early identified.
gs in all classess/subject areas

t
ent and skills test

ject area (Supported by analysis

but there is difficulty in analyzing

ent
equire it

en content and skills test

ses/subject area (Supported by

g data
s in all classess/subject areas

uire it
n content and skills test

ACTUAL RESULTS

RATING

SCORE
*

es/subject area (Supported by

ss
s in all classess/subject areas

nt

nd skills test

o need it

ho need it

o need it

o need it

need it

ency,Timelines)

dline

the deadline
the deadline
the deadline

ACTUAL RESULTS

RATING

SCORE
*

s and partial accomplishments of

reements

ns

plementation of interventions

nterventions

ency,Timelines)

port on completion

ACTUAL RESULTS

RATING

SCORE
*

two or more teachers

oneteachers

sults

mented results

results

DepEd Post/ CSC Newsletters and

OVERAL RATING FOR


ACCOMPLISHMENTS

ALEJANDRO G. CURAY
Principal III

APPROVING AUTHORITY