Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW FORM (IPCR) FOR TEACHER

Name: TESSIE A. SOLIS Name of Rater: DANIEL M. ACASIO


Position: TEACHER - I Position : PRINCIPAL - I
Review period: JUNE - MARCH Date of Review: MARCH 2016
Bureau/Center/Service/Division: DepEd MAASIN CITY
WEIGHT Performance Indicators ACTUAL RESULTS
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE RATINGS SCORE
per KRA (Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness) Quality Efficiency Timeliness
5 – All Daily lesson plans had the following
objective, subject matter, procedures,
evaluation and assignment with evidence
of localizing the curriculum and had
frequently provided individual and group
activities utilizing the teaching strategies
that develop the 21st century skills with
emphasis on the use of 4As, cooperative
learning and actual delivery of the lesson
and students’ outputs or portfolios.

4 – Had four of the five parts of lesson


plan with evidence of localizing the
DELIVERY OF TEACHING- Prepared functional daily lesson 14/3 =
curriculum and had sometimes provided
BASIC LEARNING plans and daily log of activities June to 4.67 x
20% individual and group activities utilizing 5 4 5
EDUCATION PROCESS and facilitated learning through March 20% =
teaching strategies that develop the 21st
SERVICES (60%) innovative teaching strategies .93
century skills with emphasis on the use of
4As, cooperative learning and actual
delivery of the students’ outputs or
portfolios.

3 – Had 3 of the five parts without


evidence of localizing the curriculum and
had seldom provided individual and group
activities utilizing teaching strategies that
develop the 21st century skills with
emphasis on the use of 4As, cooperative
learning and actual delivery of the lesson
and students’ outputs or portfolios.
WEIGHT Performance Indicators ACTUAL RESULTS
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE RATINGS SCORE
per KRA (Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness) Quality Efficiency Timeliness
2 – Had 2 of the five parts without
evidence of localizing the curriculum and
had very seldom provided individual and
group activities utilizing teaching
st
strategies that develop the 21 century
skills with emphasis on the use of 4As,
cooperative learning and actual delivery
of the lesson and students’ outputs or
portfolios.
1 – Had 1 of the five parts without
evidence of localizing the curriculum and
had not provided any of the above
conditions to 100% of the classes handled.

5 – Attained 100% of the desired learning


competencies with the help of a complete
budget of lessons with appropriate,
adequate and updated instructional
materials.
4 – At least 80% of the desired learning
competencies with the help of a complete
budget of lessons and seldom utilized
instructional materials in teaching learning
process.
Delivered the desired learning
3 – At least 70% of the desired learning
competencies as reflected in a 12/3 = 4
competencies with incomplete budget of
budget of lesson with 30% lesson and very seldom utilized instructional 4 4 4 x 30% =
appropriate, adequate and materials in teaching learning process 1.2
updated instructional materials
2 – At least 60% of the desired learning
competencies without budget of lessons
and without utilization of instructional
materials in teaching learning process
1 – At least 50 % of the desired learning
competencies without budget of lessons
and without utilization of instructional
materials in teaching learning process.
WEIGHT Performance Indicators ACTUAL RESULTS
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE RATINGS SCORE
per KRA (Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness) Quality Efficiency Timeliness
5 – All students were guided in the
observation of classroom rules and
guidelines with the use of agreed existing
classroom or school policies as evidenced
by descriptive rating in the report card
and journals
4 – At least 80% were guided in the
observation of classroom rules and
guidelines with the use of agreed existing
classroom or school policies as evidenced
by descriptive rating in the report card
and journals
3 – At least 70% of students were guided
Initiated discipline of students
in the observation of classroom rules and
including classroom rules, 12/3 = 4
guidelines with the use of teacher
guidelines through individual 5% 4 4 4 x 5% =
imposed classroom policies as evidenced
and group tasks within the rating .20
by descriptive rating in the report card
period
and journals
2 – At least 60% of students were guided 2.58
in the observation of classroom rules and
guidelines without any classroom policies
as evidenced by descriptive rating in the
report card and journals

1 – At least 50% of students were guided


in the observation of classroom rules and
guidelines without any classroom policies
as evidenced by descriptive rating in the
report card and journals

5 – Safety, orderliness, cleanliness, proper


Maintained a safe, motivating waste disposal and attendance were 100%
maintained 15/3 = 5
classroom environment and
5% 5 5 5 x 5% =
conducted systematic checking 4 – Safety, orderliness, cleanliness, proper
.25
of learner’s attendance waste disposal and attendance were 80 %
maintained
WEIGHT Performance Indicators ACTUAL RESULTS
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE RATINGS SCORE
per KRA (Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness) Quality Efficiency Timeliness
3 – Safety, orderliness, cleanliness, proper
waste disposal and attendance were 70%
maintained
2 – Safety, orderliness, cleanliness, proper
waste disposal and attendance were 60%
maintained
1 – Unsafe, dirty classroom and without
evidence of proper waste disposal or
management and no systematic checking
of attendance of learners

5 – Teacher has fully utilized his/her


exceptional art of questioning in the
delivery of lessons using varied types of
assessment tools to assess student
performance with the utilization of table
of specification in the crafting of quarterly
assessment tool as evidenced in the
existing classroom assessment tools and
Monitored, evaluated and student’s portfolio and
maintained students’ progress remediation/enrichment activities are
STUDENTS’
and conducted offered 100% of students who need it. 12/3 = 4
LEARNING
remediation/enrichment 15% 4 4 4 x 15% =
OUTCOMES
programs to improve .6
(25%) 4 – Teacher has sometimes utilized
performance indicators within
his/her exceptional art of questioning in
the rating period
the delivery of lessons using varied types
of assessment tools to assess student
performance with the utilization of table
of specification in the crafting of quarterly
assessment tool as evidenced in the
existing classroom assessment tools and
student’s portfolio and
remediation/enrichment activities are
offered 80% of students who need it.
WEIGHT Performance Indicators ACTUAL RESULTS
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE RATINGS SCORE
per KRA (Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness) Quality Efficiency Timeliness
3 – Teacher has seldom utilized his/her
exceptional art of questioning in the
delivery of lessons using varied types of
assessment tools to assess student
performance with the utilization of table
of specification in the crafting of quarterly
assessment tool as evidenced in the
existing classroom assessment tools and
student’s portfolio and
remediation/enrichment activities are
offered 70% of students who need it.

2 – Teacher has very seldom utilized


his/her exceptional art of questioning in
the delivery of lessons using varied types
of assessment tools to assess student
performance with the utilization of table
of specification in the crafting of quarterly
assessment tool as evidenced in the
existing classroom assessment tools and
student’s portfolio and
remediation/enrichment activities are
offered 60% of students who need it.

1 – Has not provided any of the above


conditions to 100% of the classes handled
and remediation/enrichment activities are
offered 50% and below of students who
need it
5 – 100% adherence to the new grading
system in the rating and computing of
Adhered to the existing students’ performance as evidenced in 12/3 = 4
assessment principles for learner 5% the teacher’s class record with the 4 4 4 x 5% =
performance conduct of pre and post test to see the .20
baseline as well as the gain after
particular term in all
WEIGHT Performance Indicators ACTUAL RESULTS
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE RATINGS SCORE
per KRA (Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness) Quality Efficiency Timeliness
classes/subject areas handled
4 – 80% adherence to the new grading
system in the rating and computing of
students’ performance as evidenced in
the teacher’s class record with the
conduct of pre and post test to see the
baseline as well as the gain after
particular term in all classes/subject areas
handled
3 – 70% adherence to the new grading
system in the rating and computing of
students’ performance as evidenced in
the teacher’s class record with the
conduct of pre and post test to see the
baseline as well as the gain after
particular term in all classes/subject areas
handled
2 – 60% adherence to the new grading
system in the rating and computing of 1.05
students’ performance as evidenced in
the teacher’s class record with the
conduct of pre and post test to see the
baseline as well as the gain after
particular term in all classes/subject areas
handled
1 – Non-adherence to the new grading
system

5 – 80% and above MPS/GSA

4 – 75% - 79% MPS/GSA


15/3 = 5
Attained the required GSA for
5% 5 5 5 x 5% =
grade level and learning areas 3 – 70% - 74% MPS/GSA .25
2 – 65% - 69% MPS/GSA
1 – 65% and below MPS/GSA
WEIGHT Performance Indicators ACTUAL RESULTS
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE RATINGS SCORE
per KRA (Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness) Quality Efficiency Timeliness
5 – 100% accomplishment with set
agreements met
4 – 80% of planned meetings conducted
producing only set of agreements and
partial accomplishment of these
12/3 = 4
Conducted periodic PTA
1% 4 4 4 x 1% =
meeting/conferences 3 –70% of planned meetings conducted
.04
producing set of agreement
2 – 60% of planned meetings conducted
with minimal results
1 – 50% and below of planned meetings
conducted with no results
5 – 100% accomplishment of set visits and
accomplished targeted objectives for
intervention
Community 4 – 80% accomplishments with partial
Involvement Conducted home visitation/met success in implementation of 0.21
12/3 = 4
EDUCATION (5%) parents of students needing interventions
3% 4 4 4 x 3% =
GOVERNANCE academic monitoring/follow-up 3 – 70% accomplishment of visits with
.12
within the rating period suggested planned interventions
2 – 60% accomplishment of visits with
planned interventions
1 – 50% and below accomplishment with
no interventions
5 – 100% accomplishment with full
documentation report on completion
4 – 80% project accomplishment with
Undertake/initiated partial completion 15/3 = 5
projects/events/activities with
1% 3 – 70% project accomplishment with no 5 5 5 x 1% =
external funding/sponsorship
completion report .05
within
2 – 60% project initiative only with no
completion report
1 – No project/event/activity/ initiated
Participate in Education
*Certificates showed participation and 9/3 = 3 x
Trainings and 3% 3 3 3
educational trainings/seminars 3% = .09
Workshop/Seminars
WEIGHT Performance Indicators ACTUAL RESULTS
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE RATINGS SCORE
per KRA (Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness) Quality Efficiency Timeliness
5 – National
4 - Regional
3 - Division
2 - District
1 - School

5 – Initiated and participated at least 2 co-


curricular/school activities with
Professional
documented result
Growth and
4 – Initiated and participated in co- 0.19
Development
(5%) curricular/school activities with
Initiated Participated in Co-
documented result 15/3 = 5
curricular/school activities 2% 5 5 5
3 – participated in most of co- x 2% = .1
within the rating period
curricular/school activities with
documented results
2 – participation only without
documented results
1 – No participation in school activities

5 – extended support and cooperation


with documentation on completion
4 – extended support and cooperation
Extended invaluable support and with documentation of partial completion
15/3 = 5
Other Related cooperation in the 3 – extended support and cooperation
5% 5 5 5 x 5% = .25
Performance reconstruction of learning parks with no documentation of partial
.25
in school completion
2 – partly extended support and
cooperation
1 – no support and cooperation extended
Overall Rating 4.23 - VS

TESSIE A. SOLIS DANIEL M. ACASIO ADELIA J. PALOMA


RATEE RATER Approving Authority
RANGE : ADJECTIVAL RATING
4.500 – 5.000 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTSTANDING
3.500 – 4.499 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VERY SATISFACTORY
2.500 – 3.499 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SATISFACTORY
1.500 – 2.499 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNSATISFACTORY
BELOW 1.499 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POOR