IPCRF Blank Form 1

Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Region VII, Central Visayas
Tagbilaran City Schools Division
DR. CECILIO PUTONG NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
City of Tagbilaran
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW FORM
Name of Employee: Name of Rater : JERRY B. BELECINA

Position: Position:Head Teacher III- English Department
Review Period:June 2017 to March 2018 Date of Review : ______________________________
Division: Tagbilaran City Schools Division
TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION
Weight per PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
MFO’s KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE TARGET ACTUALRESULT RATING SCORE
Objective (Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness)
Teaching- Prepared lesson June 2017 – 10 5 - • All daily lesson plans had the following
Learning plans and daily logs March 2018 objective, subject matter, procedures, evaluation
Process of activities including and assignment
(40%) appropriate, • Each part had a full description of what to do
adequate and with an example
updated instructional • Objective was specific, measurable, attainable,
materials 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 • Had three of the four parts of lesson plan

• Each part had a partial description of activities/
tasks to be done
• Objective was stated with 1 behavioral
indicator is missing
• 84-99% developed high order thinking skills
• Attained 84-99% of the desired learning
competencies
• 84-99% based on the approved budget of work
Page 1 of 12
Weight per PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ACTUAL
MFO’s KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE TARGET RATING SCORE
Objective (Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness) RESULT
3 • Had 2 of the four parts
• Each part had a partial description without

example
• Objective was stated with 2-3 behavioral
indicator missing
competencies
• 68-83% based on the approved budget of
work
• 2- • Had 1 of the four parts
• Each part had no description of what to do

• Objective was stated with 1-2 behavioral
indicators missing
competencies
• 51-67% based on the approved budget of work
•1-• None of the four parts
• Each part had no description of what to do and

example
• Objective was stated without behavioral
indicators
• 50% and below develop high order thinking
skills
• 50% and below attain the desired learning
competencies at all
• 50% and below based on the approved
budget of work
Page 2 of 12
Facilitated learning June, 2016 10  5 - The teacher established challenging and
in the elementary to measureable goal/s for student learning that is
and secondary March, 2017 aligned with the DepEd K to 12 Learning Material
schools through  The goal reflected a range of student learner
functional lessons needs.
plans, daily logs  Has provided individual activities for a 100% and
and innovative above of the classes handled for the rating period
 Teaching methods and strategies elicited100%
teaching strategies
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 studentobservation/ appraisal are85-
99% and above used as basis forfollow-up
 4 - The teacher developed a measureable goal for
student learning that is aligned with the DepEd K
to 12 Learning Material.
 The teacher explained the importance of the goal
and its appropriateness to students.
 Has provided individual activities for a84-99% of
the classes handled for the rating period
 Teaching methods and strategies elicited 84-99%
interaction from a class
 Inductive method/deductive method was 84-99%
used in teaching a lesson
 Cooperative learning strategies was 84-99%
effective when used.
 ICT integration is 84-99% evident.
 Results of student observation/appraisal are 84-
99% used as basis for follow up.
Page 3 of 12
 3 - The teacher clearly communicated a focus for
student learning that is appropriate for students
and is aligned DepEd K to 12 Learning Manual.
 Has provided individual activities for a68-83% of
 Inductive method/deductive method was68-83%
effective when used
 ICT integration is 68-83%evident
 Results of student observation/ appraisal are 68-
83% used as basis for follow-up
 2 - The teacher did not have a clear focus for

student learning.
 Has provided individual activities for a 51-67% of
 Inductive method/deductive method was 51-67%
effective when used
 ICT integration is 51-67%evident
 Results of student observation/ appraisal are 51-
67% used as basis for follow-up
 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.
 Teaching methods and strategies elicited 50%
and below interaction from a class
 Inductive method/deductive method was not
Page 4 of 12
ACTUAL
Weight per PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
MFO’s KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE TARGET RESULT RATING SCORE
Objective (Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness)
 Cooperative learning strategy was never
used
 ICT integration is not evident
 Results of student observation/ appraisal
are not used as basis for follow-up
Initiated June, 2014 10  5 - Pupils were 100% and above guided in the
discipline of to observation of classroom rules and guidelines as
students March, 2015 evidenced by descriptive rating in the report
including card/journal
classroom rules,  4 - Pupils were84-99% guided in the observation
guidelines and of classroom rules and guidelines as evidenced
individual and by descriptive rating in the report card/journal
group tasks  3 - Pupils were68-83% guided in the observation
within the rating of classroom rules and guidelines as evidenced
period by descriptive rating in the report card/journal
 2 - Pupils were51-67% guided in the observation
of classroom rules and guidelines as evidenced
by descriptive rating in the report card/journal
 1 - Pupils were not guided in the observation of
Monitored classroom rules and guidelines as evidenced by
attendance, diversity descriptive rating in the report card/journal
appreciation, safe,
positive and June, 2016 10  5 - Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors,
motivating To toilets and proper waste disposal were 100% and
environment, overall March, 2017 above maintained
physical  Attendance checking was100% and above
atmosphere, systematically carried out
cleanliness and  4 - Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors,
orderliness of toilets and proper waste disposal were 84-99%
classrooms maintained
including proper
 Attendance checking was84-99% systematically
waste disposal daily
carried out
Page 5 of 12
 3 - Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of
floors, toilets and proper waste disposal
were 65-74% maintained
 Attendance checking was68-83%
systematically carried out
 2- Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of
were 51-67% maintained
 Attendance checking was51-67%
 1 - Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of
were 50% and below consistently
maintained
 Attendance checking was 50% and below
Pupils/Stud Monitored and June, 10
 5 - Evidences showed that the teacher purposely
ents evaluated and August,
Outcome plans assessments and varies assessment
maintained pupils/ October, choices to match the different student needs,
(40%) students’ progress 2017 to abilities, and learning styles.
within the rating January,  Table of Specifications is 100% and above
period March 2018 prepared for tests that require it
 Table of Specifications is 100% and above
prepared for tests that require it
 Test questions were100% and above logically
sequenced
 Pretest and Post-test were 100% and above
administered in all classes/subject area
(supported by analysis report on subject area per
class/grade level)
Page 6 of 12
 4- The teacher explained the various uses and
limitations of the different kinds of
assessments/tests. Evidences showed that
student needs and avenues for growth were
clearly identified.
 Table of Specifications is 84-99% prepared for
tests that require it
 Table of Specifications showed 84-99%
congruence between content and skills tested
 Test questions were 84-99% logically sequenced
 Pretest and Post-test were 84-99% administered
in all classes/subject area (supported by analysis
report on subject area per class/grade level)
 3 - There is evidence of more than one measure

of student performance but there is difficulty in
analyzing data to inform instructional planning and
delivery.
 Table of Specifications showed 68-83%
 Test questions were 68-83% sequenced
Page 7 of 12
MFO’s KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ACTUAL RATING SCORE
Objective (Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness) TARGET RESULT
 2 - The teacher planned instructions without
analyzing student learning data.
 Table of Specifications slightly showed51-67%
 Test questions were51-67% logically sequenced
 1- 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/subject
areas handled
 Students’ portfolio contained 50% and below of
his accomplishments
 Table of Specifications is not prepared.
 Table of Specifications did not show congruence
between content and skills tested.
 Test questions were not logically sequenced.
 Pretest and Post-test were never administered.
 5 -Remediation/Enrichment Program is offered to

Conducted June, 2017 10 100% and above of students who need it
remediation/enrichm to  4 – Remediation/Enrichment Program is offered to
ent programs to March, 2018 84-99% who need it
improve
 3 - Remediation/Enrichment Program is offered to
performance
68-83% who need it
indicators
 2 - Remediation/Enrichment Program is offered to
51-67% who need it.
 1 – Remediation/Enrichment Program is offered
to 50% and below who need it.
Page 8 of 12
Maintained updated June, 2017 10 5 – Class record reflected the bases of 100% and
pupils’/students’ to above of the students’ rating in all classes/subject
school records March, 2018 handled.
Students’ portfolio contained 100% and above of his
accomplishment.
4 – Class record reflected the bases of 84-99% of
students’ ratings in all classes/subject areas handled
Students’ portfolio contained 84-99% of his
accomplishment.
3 – Class record reflected the bases of 68-83% of
Students’ portfolio contained of 68-83%of his
accomplishments.
2 - Class record reflected the bases of 51-67% of
Students’ portfolio contained of 51-67%of his
accomplishments.
1 - Class record reflected the bases of 50% of
Students’ portfolio contained of 50% of his
accomplishments.
Attained the 5 – 100% and above MPS/GSA

August, 10 4 – 84 -99 % MPS/GSA
required GSA for
October, 3 – 68-83% MPS/GSA
Grade level and
2017 to 2 – 51-74% MPS/GSA
learning areas
January , 1 – 50% and below MPS/GSA
March, 2018
Page 9 of 12
Community Conducted June, 5  5 - Six and above accomplishment with set
Involvemen regular/periodic PTA 2017to agreements met
t meetings/conferenc March 2018  4 -Five of planned meetings conducted producing
(15%) es only set agreements and partial accomplishment
of these
 3 –Fourof planned meetings conducted producing
set of agreements
 2 - Three of planned meetings conducted with
minimal results
 1 – Twoand below of planned meetings
conducted with no results
Visited parents of June 2017 5  5 – Four and above set visits successful
students needing to March interventions
academic  4 – Threevisits with partial success in
2018
monitoring/follow-up implementation of interventions
within the rating  3 - Two visits with suggested planned
period interventions
 2 – One visit with planned interventions
 Not visited parents at all
Page 10 of 12
Undertaken/initiated June 2017 5  5 – P2000 and above worth of project
projects/events/activ to accomplishment with 100% documentation report
ities with external March 2018 on completion
funding/sponsorship  4- P2000& above worth of project
within the target accomplishment with 76 to 99% completion
date  3 - P2000& above worth of project with 51-
75%completion report
 2 – P2000 & above worth of project initiative only
with no completion report
 1 - No project/event/activity initiated
June, 2017 2  5 – Three action research conducted with full

Personal Conducted
to March documentation on completion of interventions
Growth and problem/classroom-
 4 - Two action research conducted with full
Developme based Action 2018
documentation on completion of interventions
nt Research
(5%)  3 - One action research conducted with full
documentation on completion of interventions
 2 – Identified classroom/learning problems with
research proposals
 1 – Only classroom/ learning problems/ issues
identified
 5 – Participated 8 out of 10 activities of the

June 2017 1
Participated in any association
to March  4 – Participated 6 out of 10 activities of the
teachers’
association/activities 2018 association
 3 - Participated 4 out of 10 activities of the
association
association
association
Page 11 of 12
Produced June, 2017 1  5 - Produced 4 publications/creative work

publications/creative to published in the school paper
work for school March 2018  4 - Produced 3 publications/creative work
paper/division published in the school paper
publication  3 - Produced 2 publications/creative work
published in the school paper
 2 - Produced 1 publications/creative work
published in the school paper
 1 – Produced unpublished work
June 2017 1 5 – Has received awards/citations/recognitions

Received special
To for exemplary performance in the National
awards/citations/
Recognition for March 2018 Level.
exemplary 4 - Has received awards/citations/recognitions
performance for exemplary performance in the Regional
Level.
3 - Has received awards/citations/recognitions
for exemplary performance in the Division
Level.
for exemplary performance in the School Level.
for exemplary performance in the Year Level.
 To get the score, the rating is multiplied by the weight assigned. Overall Rating Accomplishment
Descriptive Rating: 4.5 – 5.0 Outstanding
3.5 – 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.5 – 3.499 Satisfactory
1.5 – 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.499 below - Poor
________________________________ JERRY B.BELECINA VIRGILIA G. OMICTIN

Ratee Rater Secondary School Principal III
Page 12 of 12

IPCRF Blank Form 1

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

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

IPCRF Blank Form 1

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Republic of the Philippines

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW FORM

Name of Employee: Name of Rater : JERRY B. BELECINA

4 • Had three of the four parts of lesson plan

• Each part had a partial description without

• 2- • Had 1 of the four parts

• Each part had no description of what to do

•1-• None of the four parts

• Each part had no description of what to do and

 2 - The teacher did not have a clear focus for

 3 - There is evidence of more than one measure

 5 -Remediation/Enrichment Program is offered to

Attained the 5 – 100% and above MPS/GSA

June, 2017 2  5 – Three action research conducted with full

 5 – Participated 8 out of 10 activities of the

Produced June, 2017 1  5 - Produced 4 publications/creative work

June 2017 1 5 – Has received awards/citations/recognitions

________________________________ JERRY B.BELECINA VIRGILIA G. OMICTIN

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen