Division of Malabon City

Maya- maya St., Kaunlaran Village, Longos,

Malabon City
District of Malabon III

DE LA PAZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW FORM (IPCRF)

Name of Employee: RICHARD J. ESPIJON
Name of Rater: REMEDIOS P. REY
Position: TEACHER - III
Position: MASTER TEACHER II
Bureau/Center/Service/Division: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MALABON CITY
Date of Review: MARCH 2016
Rating Period: APRIL 2015 MARCH 2016
TO BE FILLED IN DURING PLANNING
TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION
ACTUAL
RATING
SCORE*
MFOs
KRAs
OBJECTIVES
TIMELINE Weight
PERFORMANCE
RESULTS
per
INDICATORS
Q
E
T
Ave.
KRA
(Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness)
MFO2-Basic
Education Services

TeachingLearning
Process

40%

Prepared daily lesson

plans and daily logs of
activities including
appropriate, adequate
and updated instructional
materials with the rating
period.

June, 2015March, 2016

15%

5 - All daily lesson plans had 5 parts

with each part had full description of
what to do with an example, attained
100% of above of the desired
learning competencies.
4 - Had 4 of the five parts, each part had
a partial description of what to do
with an example and attained 85%
-99% of the desired learning
competencies.
3 - Had 3 of the five parts, each part had
a partial description of what to do
with an example and attained 70%
-84% of the desired learning
competencies.
2 - Had 2 of the five parts, each part had
no partial description of what to do
with an example and attained 51%
-69% of the desired learning
competencies.

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

Weight
per
KRA

PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
(Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness)
1 - Had 1 of the five parts, of each part
had no description of what to do with
no example, 50% and below attained
the desired learning competencies.

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

June, 2015March, 2016

10%

5 - The teacher established challenging

and measurable goals for student
learning that is aligned with the
Dep.Ed standards where the goal
reflected a range of student learner
needs and has provided 100% above
of the ff:
individual activities for the classes
handled for the rating period
interaction from a class was
elicited.
effective cooperative learning
when used.
ICT integration is evident
results of student
observation/appraisal is used as
basis for follow-up
4 - The teacher explained the importance
of the goal and its appropriateness to
students and have provided 85% 99% of the ff:
individual activities for the classes
handled for the rating period
interaction from a class was
elicited.
effective cooperative learning
when used.
ICT integration is evident
results of student
observation/appraisal is used as
basis for follow-up.

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING
Q

SCORE*
Ave.

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

Weight
per
KRA

PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
(Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness)
3 - The teacher clearly communicated a
focus for student learning that is
appropriate for students and is
aligned with the Dep.Ed standards
and has provided 70% - 84% of the
ff:
individual activities for the classes
handled for the rating period
interaction from a class was
elicited.
effective cooperative learning
when used.
ICT integration is evident
results of student
observation/appraisal is used as
basis for follow-up
2 - The teacher did not have a clear
focus for student learning and has
provided 51% - 69% of the ff:
individual activities for the classes
handled for the rating period
interaction from a class was
elicited.
effective cooperative learning
when used.
ICT integration is evident
results of student
observation/appraisal is used as
basis for follow-up
1 - The teacher did not have a clear
focus for student learning on the
objective is inappropriate for students
and has provided 50% and below of
the ff:
individual activities for the classes
handled for the rating period
interaction from a class was
elicited.
effective cooperative learning
when used.

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING
Q

SCORE*
Ave.

 ICT integration is evident

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

Weight
per
KRA

PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
(Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness)
results of student
observation/appraisal is used as
basis for follow-up

Initiated discipline of
students including
classroom rules,
guidelines and individual
and group tasks within
the rating period.

June, 2015March, 2016

10%

5 - Pupils were 100% and above guided

in the observation of classroom rules
and guidelines as evidenced by
descriptive rating in the report card/
journal.
4 - Pupils were 85% - 99% guided in
the observation of classroom rules
and guidelines as evidenced by
descriptive rating in the report card/
journal.
3 - Pupils were 70% - 84% guided in the
observation of classroom rules and
guidelines as evidenced by
descriptive rating in the report card/
journal.
2 - Pupils were 51% - 69% 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 classroom rules and
guidelines as evidenced by
descriptive rating in the report card/
journal.

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

June, 2015March, 2016

5%

5 - Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of

floors, toilets and proper waste
disposal were maintained and
attendance checking was
systematically carried out 100% and
above.
4 - Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of
floors, toilets and proper waste
disposal were maintained and
attendance checking was systematic-

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING
Q

SCORE*
Ave.

ally carried out 85%-99%.

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

Weight
per
KRA

PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
(Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness)
3 - Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of
floors, toilets and proper waste
disposal were maintained and
attendance checking was
systematically carried out 70% -84%.
2 - Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of
floors, toilets and proper waste
disposal were maintained and
attendance checking was
systematically carried out 51% -69%.
1 - Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of
floors, toilets and proper waste
disposal were maintained and
attendance checking was
systematically carried out 50% and
above.

40%

Pupils
Outcomes

Monitored, evaluated
and maintained pupils
progress within the
rating period.

June, 2015March, 2016

15%

5 Evidences showed that the teacher

purposely plans assessments and
varies assessment choices to match
the different student needs, abilities
and learning styles with 100% and
above of the ff:
class record reflected the bases of
pupils ratings in all subject area
handled.
students portfolio contained of
his/her accomplishment.
table of specification prepared for
tests that require it and showed
congruence between content and
skills tested.
test questions were logically
sequenced.
pre-test and post- test were
administered in all classes/subject
area support by analysis report.

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING
Q

SCORE*
Ave.

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

Weight
per
KRA

PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
(Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness)
4 - The teacher explained the various
uses and limitations of the different
kinds of assessments/tests and
evidences showed that student needs
and avenues for growth were clearly
identified with 85%-99%.
students portfolio contained of
his/her accomplishment.
table of specification prepared for
tests that require it and showed
congruence between content and
skills tested.
test questions were logically
sequenced.
pre-test and post- test were
administered in all classes/subject
area support by analysis report.
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 with 70% - 84%.
students portfolio contained of
his/her accomplishment.
table of specification prepared for
tests that require it and showed
congruence between content and
skills tested.
test questions were logically
sequenced.
pre-test and post- test were
administered in all classes/subject
area support by analysis report.
2 - The teacher planned instructions
without analyzing student learning
data with 51% - 69%.
students portfolio contained of
his/her accomplishment.

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING
Q

SCORE*
Ave.

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

Weight
per
KRA

PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
(Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness)
table of specification prepared for
tests that require it and showed
congruence between content and
skills tested.
test questions were logically
sequenced.
pre-test and post- test were
administered in all classes/subject
area support by analysis report.
1 - No evidence of student monitoring or
evaluation of student progress with
50% below.
students portfolio contained of
his/her accomplishment.
table of specification prepared for
tests that require it and showed
congruence between content and
skills tested.
test questions were logically
sequenced.
pre-test and post- test were
administered in all classes/subject
area support by analysis report.

Conducted
remediation/enrichment
programs to improve
performance indicators.

June, 2015March, 2016

15%

5 - Remediation/Enrichment Program is
offered to 100% and above of
students who need it.
4 Remediation/Enrichment Program is
offered to 85% - 99% who needs it.
3 Remediation/Enrichment Program is
offered to 70%-84% who needs it.
2 Remediation/Enrichment Program is
offered to 51%-69% who needs it.
1 Remediation/Enrichment Program is
offered to 50% and below who needs
it.

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING
Q

SCORE*
Ave.

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

Attained the required

GSA for grade level and
learning areas.

TIMELINE

June, 2015March, 2016

Weight
per
KRA
10%

PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
(Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness)
5 100% and above MPS/GSA
4 85% - 99% MPS/GSA
3 70% - 84% MPS/GSA
2 51% - 69% MPS/GSA
1 50% and below MPS/GSA

Community
Involvement

10%

Conducted
regular/periodic PTA
meetings/conferences.

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

June, 2015March, 2016

June, 2015March, 2016

4%

3%

5 100% and above accomplishment

with set agreements met
4 85% - 99% of planned meetings
conducted producing only set
agreements and partial
accomplishment of these
3 70%-84% of planned meetings
conducted producing set of
agreements
2 51%-69% of planned meetings
conducted with minimal results
1 50% and below of planned meetings
conducted with minimal results
5 100% and above accomplishment of
set visits successful interventions
4 85% - 99% accomplishment of
visits with partial success in
implementation of interventions
3 70% - 84% accomplishment of visits
with suggested planned interventions
2 51% - 69% accomplishment of visits
with planned interventions
1 50% and below accomplishment
with no interventions

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING
Q

SCORE*
Ave.

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

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

TIMELINE

June, 2015March, 2016

Professional
Growth and
Development

Conducted Action
Research

Participated in activities
such as teachers
association, etc.

June, 2015March, 2016

June, 2015March, 2016

Weight
per
KRA

PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
(Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness)

3%

5 100% and above project

accomplishment with full
documentation report on completion
4 85% - 99% project accomplishment
with partial completion
3 70% - 84% project initiative only
with no completion
2 51% - 69% project initiative only
with no completion report
1 No project/event/activity initiated

10%

5 3 Action Research conducted with

full documentation on completion of
interventions
4 2 Action Research conducted with
full documentation on completion of
interventions
3 1 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%

2%

5 Initiated at least 2 cocurricular/school activities with

documented results
4 Initiated and participated in cocurricular/school activities with
documented results
3 Participated in co-curricular/school
activities with documented results
2 Participation only without
documented results
1 No participation in school activities

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING
Q

SCORE*
Ave.

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

Received special
awards/citation/
recognition for
exemplary performance.

Weight
per
KRA

June, 2015March, 2016

TOTAL

3%

PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
(Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness)

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING
Q

SCORE*
Ave.

5 National level
4 Regional level
3 Division level
2 District level
1 School level

OVERALL
RATING
FOR
ACCOMPLI
SHMENTS

100%

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

REMEDIOS P. REY
Rater

RICHARD J. ESPIJON
Ratee

ROGELIO B. WILLIAM
Approving Authority

________________________________________________________________

De La Paz Elementary School altogether delivers.