OPCRF 2016 2017 Updated

Name of Employee: ROMEO E. BALLESTEROS Name of Rater: MILDRED D. DAYAO, Ed.
D
Position: PRINCIPAL II Position: Chief Curriculum Implementation Division
Review Period: MAY 2017 – APRIL 2018 Date of Review:
Bureau/ Center/ Service/ Division: BALIWASAN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL – STAND ALONE
TO BE FILLED IN DURING PLANNING TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION
Weight PERFORMANCE ACTUAL RESULTS
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Per INDICATORS RATING SCORE
Q E T Ave
KRA (Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness)
EFFICIENCY: 5 5 .5
(5) – NAT performance is increased to
1.1 Accounted for National 75%.
Competency (NC) outcomes (4) NAT performance is increased to
50-74% (above baseline data)
of grade 12 TVL students; (3) – NAT performance is increased to
NAT outcomes of grade 11; 40-49% (within baseline data)
(2) – NAT performance is within 30-
and Mean Percentile Score 39%
(MPS) of grade 12 for (1) – NAT performance is below 30%
academic strands as an May 2017- 10% QUALITY:

achievement indicators for (5) – The following indicators were
April 2018 evident:
School Year 2017-2018.  100% Attendance of Grade 10
INSTRUCTIONAL  Environment Conducive to
LEADERSHIP Note: For NAT and Internal Exam 5

 Materials were found to be
(30%) testing, the administration is sealed before the actual exam
 No direct intervention from
the performance of the authorities of the school
indicator for QUALITY,  Posting of the list of examinees
(4)- Lack 1 indicator
i.e., the proper conduct of (3) – Lack 2 indicators
the examination by (2)- Lack 3 indicators
(1) – Lack 4 indicators
eliminating the questions on QUALITY: (FOR TVL –NC)
external validity. For NC’s, (5) Preparation of NC examinees and
requirements is 90-80%
the preparation and
(4) Preparation of NC examinees and
assistance to students shall requirements is 80 – 70%
be the indicators. (3) Preparation of NC examinees and
Name of Employee: ROMEO E. BALLESTEROS Name of Rater: MILDRED D. DAYAO, Ed. D
Bureau/ Center/ Service/ Division: TALISAYAN NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL- Zamboanga City Division
Q E T Ave
1.2 Performed instructional QUALITY:
supervision to teachers as (5) – The following indicators were
well as instituting structure evident: 5
and system for instructional  Classroom observation was
carried out with supervisory
supervision with plan
empowered coordinators as  With detailed written
observations.
mandated by DepEd to  With complete elements of
establish a system and May 2017- 10%
STAR to include agreement.
4)- Only two were completely done
processes for improving April 2018 (3) – Only one were completely
classroom observations by done
INSTRUCTIONAL intensifying classroom (2)- only two were partially done 5 0.5
LEADERSHIP (1) – only one indicator was
observations to at least 12 partially done.
(30%) teachers in a month. EFFICIENCY:
(5) – conducted 100% instructional 5
supervision (12 times a month)
(4)- conducted 83% instructional
supervision(10 times a month)
(3) – conducted 67% instructional
(2)- conducted 50% instructional
(1) – conducted less than 50%
instructional supervision(5times and
below)
Q E T Ave
QUALITY:
1.3 Adopted a school reading (5) – Adopted and transformed the 4
PHIL-IRI and fully implemented
program utilizing selections the program
from SRA to come up with a (4) Adopted and transformed the
system with the end of PHIL-IRI an implemented 75% of
the program
improving reading abilities (3) – Adopted and transformed the
of students throughout the PHIL-IRI and implemented 50% of
year. the program
May 2017- 5% (2) Adopted and transformed the
April 2018 PHIL-IRI.
(1) – Adopted the PHIL-IRI. 4 0.2
INSTRUCTIONAL
LEADERSHIP EFFICIENCY:
(5) – 100 % of the students with
(30%) improvement moved to next level of
reading assessment 4
(4)- 90% of the students with
improvement moved to next level of
reading assessment
(3) – 80% of the students with
reading assessment
(2)- 60 % of the students with
reading assessment
(1) – 50 % of the students with
reading assessment
Q E T Ave
TIMELINESS:
1.4 Initiated School-based 5
(5) – Submitted action research during
action researches to meet the first quarter of the school year.
pressing problems through (4)- Submitted action research during
the second quarter of the school year.
collaborative efforts of (3) – Submitted action research during
teachers and administration the early third quarter of the school
year.
within the school year. (2)- Submitted action research during
the late third quarter of the school year. 4.5 0.225
May 2016- 5%
(1) – Submitted action research during
April 2017 the fourth quarter of the school year.
INSTRUCTIONAL EFFICIENCY:
LEADERSHIP
(5) – Submitted 4 action researches
(30%) 4
(4)- Submitted 3 action researches
(3) Submitted 2 action researches
(2)- Submitted 1 action research
(1) – no action research done
1.425
Q E T Ave
QUALITY: 5 5 5 .5
2.1 Managed DepEd mandated
(5) – All programs were above the
programs and projects within the standard (based on the rating of each
school year for holistic assessing body)
(4)- Some of programs were above the
development of the students by standard (based on the rating of each
all stakeholders of the school assessing body)
(3) – All programs were within the
through the implementation of standard (based on the rating of each
programs such as May 2017- 10% assessing body)
 Project MANE- April 2018
(2)- Some programs were below the
standard (based on the rating of each
Child Protection assessing body)
LEARNING Program (1) – All programs were below the
standard (based on the rating of each
ENVIRONMENT  Project WATCH assessing body)
(20%)  Deworming and
EFFICIENCY:
vaccination
 SDRRM (5) – All programs were implemented.
(4)- Only 4 programs were
 GAD implemented
(3) - Only 3 programs were
implemented
(2)- Only 2 programs were
implemented
(1) – Only 1 program implemented
Q E T Ave
2.2 Rehabilitated physical QUALITY:
resources of the school by (5) – All rehabilitations were above the
teachers and administration standard (based on the rating of each 4
to make the learning assessing body)
(4)- Some of rehabilitations were
environment more conducive above the standard (based on the rating
to learning by conducting of each assessing body)
(3) – All rehabilitations were within the
repairs on chairs, ceilings, standard (based on the rating of each
and other basic utilities, May 2017- 5% assessing body)
(2)- Some rehabilitations were below
repainting of the classrooms, April 2018 the standard (based on the rating of each
and improving the school assessing body)
LEARNING grounds. (1) – All rehabilitations were below 4.5 0.225
the standard (based on the rating of each
ENVIRONMENT assessing body)
(20%)
EFFICIENCY:
(5) – Rehabilitated and repaired all
5
resources
(4)- Rehabilitated and repaired 90%
of the resources
(3) - Rehabilitated and repaired 80% of
the resources
(2)- Rehabilitated and repaired 70% of
the resources
(1) – Rehabilitated and repaired
Rehabilitated and repaired 60% of the
resources
Q E T Ave
EFFICIENCY:
(5) – Provided 100 % support to

2.3 Provided support to teachers teachers on instructional requirements.
by administration on (4)- Provided 90% support to teachers
on instructional requirements.
instructional requirements (3) – Provided 80 % support to teachers
for effective learning. on instructional requirements. 5 4
(2)- Provided 70 % support to teachers
May 2017- 5% (1) – Provided 60 % support to teachers
April 2018
4.5 0.225
LEARNING TIMELINESS:
ENVIRONMENT
(5) – Support given proactively ahead
(20%) of time
(4)- Support given on time
(3) - Support given one day after the
request
(2)- Support given 3 days after the
request.
(1) – support given 1 week after the
request.
0.95
Q E T Ave
QUALITY:
3.1 Conducted trainings by 4 5
(5) – Participated trainings in national
administration to teachers to level and conducted InSet in school
enhance classroom level
(4)- Participated trainings in regional
management skills and to level and conducted InSet in school
non-teaching personnel for level
(3) – Participated trainings in division 4.5
support within the RPMS level and conducted InSet in school
HUMAN cycle. level 0.225
May 2017- 5%
RESOURCE (2)- Participated trainings in school
April 2018 level and conducted InSet in school
MANAGEMENT level
AND (1) – Conducted Inset in school level.
DEVELOPMENT
EFFICIENCY:
(15%)
(5) – Conducted InSet and other
trainings at least 40 hours.
(4)- Conducted InSet and other
(3) - Conducted InSet and other
trainings at least 24hours.
(2)- Conducted InSet and other
(1) – Conducted InSet and other
Q E T Ave
EFFICIENCY:
3.2 Provided technical assistance 5
(5) – Provided 100% technical
to teachers and non-teaching assistance to teachers and non-teaching
personnel pertaining to personnel
(4)- Provided 90% technical
personal and professional assistance to teachers and non-teaching
development. personnel
assistance to teachers and non-teaching
personnel 5 0.25
May 2017- 5% (2)- Provided 70% technical
HUMAN April 2018 assistance to teachers and non-teaching
RESOURCE personnel
MANAGEMENT assistance to teachers and non-teaching
AND personnel
5
DEVELOPMENT TIMELINESS:
(15%)
(5) – Support given proactively ahead
of time
(4)- Support given on time
(3) - Support given one day after the
request
(2)- Support given 3 days after the
request.
(1) – Support given 1 week after the
request.
Q E T Ave
EFFICIENCY:
3.3 Develop structures and 4
(5) – Provided 100% support to
processes to assist Admin sector teachers on the HRM and HRD aspect.
in administering policies. (4)- – Provided 97% support to
teachers on the HRM and HRD aspect
(3) – – Provided 80% support to
(2)- – Provided 70% support to 4.5
(1) – – Provided 60% support to 0.225
HUMAN May 2017- 5%
teachers on the HRM and HRD aspect .
RESOURCE April 2018
MANAGEMENT TIMELINESS:
5
AND (5) – support given proactively ahead
DEVELOPMENT of time.
(15%) (4)- support given on time.
(3) - support given one day after the
request
(2)- support given 3 days after the

request
(1) – support given 1 week after the
request
0.7
Q E T Ave
EFFICIENCY:
4. Established school, family 4
(5) – Established all school, family, and
and community partnership community partnership for school
for school performance performance.
(4)- Established 90% school, family,
 Brigada Eskwela and community partnership for school
Implementation performance.
(3) – Established 80%school, family,
 4Ps May 2017- and community partnership for school
 Alumni April 2018 15% performance.
PARENTS’ (2)- Established 70% school, family,
 PTA and community partnership for school
INVOLVEMENT
 Hosting of District performance.
AND COMMUNITY (1) – Established 60% school, family, 4 0.40
activities and community partnership for school
PARTNERSHIP
 Hosting of Barangay performance.
(15%)
activities TIMELINESS: 4
 Potential partners for
(5) – Reports of activities submitted
donations and ahead of due date.
immersion for the (4)- Reports of activities submitted
purpose of senior high on time
(3) - Reports of activities submitted 3
school. days after due date
 Other school (2)- Reports of activities submitted
one week after the due date
committees (child (1) – Reports of activities submitted
protection one month after the due date
committee,etc)
Q E T Ave
(5) – addressed to all complaints

4.1 Addressed complaints of (4)- addressed to 90% of the
different stakeholders complains
groupings by administration (3) – addressed to 80% of the 5 5 5 0.25
complains
to improve educational (2)- addressed to 70% of the complains
system (1) – addressed to 60% of the
complains
PARENTS’ May 2017- 5%

INVOLVEMENT TIMELINESS:
April 2018
AND COMMUNITY (5) – complaints addressed on time.
PARTNERSHIP (4)- complaints addressed one week
after
(15%) (3) - complaints addressed 15 days
after
(2)- complaints addressed one month
after
(1) – complaints addressed one
months after
0.65
Q E T Ave
QUALITY:
5. Judiciously utilized funds
(5) – The following indicators were
and implemented measures evident: 4
for greater accountability  Reports on expenditures are
accurate
(MOOE and other funds) by  Principle on transparency is
school authorities. observed and reports of such
are conspicuously displayed.
 Principles on checks and
balances are observed are
SCHOOL May 2017- 15% evidenced by regular financial 4 0.6
LEADERSHIP, April 2018 conferences.
(4)- Only two were completely done
MANAGEMENT (3) – Only one were completely
AND OPERATIONS done
(15%) (2)- only two were partially done
(1) – only one indicator was
partially done.
TIMELINESS:
4 0.6
(5) – Submitted liquidation reports on
time.
(4)- Submitted liquidation reports
15 days after the due date
(3) - Submitted liquidation reports 1
month after the due date
(2)- Submitted liquidation reports 2
months after the due date
(1) – Submitted liquidation reports 3
months after the due date
Q E T Ave
6. Established linkages by 5 0.25

(5) – Linkages established
administration to potential
partners for school
improvement
May 2017- 5%
PLUS FACTOR April 2018
(5%)
0.25
Rater: Ratee: Approving Authority: TOTAL 4.53

______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________
EVELYN T. VILLA ROMEO E. BALLESTEROS MILDRED D. DAYAO, Ed. D
Chief Education Supervisor
Asst. Chief, CES-CID Principal II Curriculum Implementation Division

OPCRF 2016 2017 Updated

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

OPCRF 2016 2017 Updated

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Name of Employee: ROMEO E. BALLESTEROS Name of Rater: MILDRED D. DAYAO, Ed.

academic strands as an May 2017- 10% QUALITY:

LEADERSHIP Note: For NAT and Internal Exam 5

(5) – Provided 100 % support to

(2)- support given 3 days after the

(5) – addressed to all complaints

PARENTS’ May 2017- 5%

6. Established linkages by 5 0.25

Rater: Ratee: Approving Authority: TOTAL 4.53

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen