Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 59

POSITION AND COMPETENCY PROFILE PCP No.

_________ Revision Code: 00

Department of Education
Postion Title Teacher I Salary Grade 11
Parenthetical Title
Office Unit Effectivity Date
Reports to Principal/ School Heads Page/s
Position Supervised
JOB SUMMARY

QUALIFICATION STANDARDS
A. CSC Prescribed Qualifications
Education Bachelor of Elementary/Secondary/Early Childhood Education or Bachelor's degree plus 18 professional unit in Education
Experience None required
Eligibility RA 1080
Trainings None required
B. Preferred Qualifications
Education BSE/BSEEd/College Graduate with education units (18-21), MA units 18 units
Experience
Eligibility PBET/LET Passers
Trainings In-Service training
Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form

Name of Employee: Name of Rater:


Position: Position:
Review Period: Date of Review:
Bureau/Center/Service/Division:

Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

Teaching-Learning • Prepared lesson plans and daily


Process logs of activities including appropriate
adequate and updated instructional
materials with in the rating period

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

• Facilitated learning in the school


through functional lesson plans, daily
logs and innovative teaching
strategies

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

• Initiated discipline of students


including classroom rules, guidelines
and individual and group task with in
the rating period

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

• Monitored attendance, diversity and


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

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

• Pupils/Student • Monitored and evaluated and


Outcomes maintained pupils/students' progress
with in the rating period

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

• Conducted
Remediation/enrichment programs to
improve performance indicators

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

• Attained the required GSA for grade


level and learning areas

• Community • Conducted periodic PTA


Involvement meetings/conferences

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

• Visited parents of students needing


academic monitoring/follow-up with
in the rating period

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

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

• Professional • Conducted problem/classroom


Growth and based action research
Development

• Initiated/Participated in co-
curricular/school activities with in the
rating period

#RSH#
Weight
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per KRA

• Produced publications/ creative


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

0
Ratee

#RSH#
ndividual Performance Commitment and Review Form

of Rater:

f Review:

RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

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
• 130% and above developed high order thinking skills
• Attained 130% and above of the desired learning competencies
• 130% 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

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

• Objective was stated with 1 behavioral indicator is missing


• 115-129% developed high order thinking skills
• Attained 115-129% of the desired learning competencies
• 115-129% 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
• 100-114% develop high order thinking skills
• Attained 100-114% of the desired learning competencies
• 100-114% 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
• Attained 51-99% of the desired learning competencies
• 51-99% based on the approved budget of work

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

1 - Poor
• Had 1 of the five parts

• Each part had no description with out example

• Objectives was stated without behavioral indicator m

• 50% and below develop high order thinking skills

• 50% and below attained the desired learning competencies

• 50% and below based on the approved budget of work


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 130% and above of the classes handled for the rating period
• Teaching methods and strategies elicited 130% and above interaction from a class
• Inductive method/deductive method was 130% and above used in teaching a lesson
• Cooperative learning strategies was 130% and above effective when used

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

• ICT integration is 130% and above evident


• Results of student observations/appraisal are 130% 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 115-129% and above of the classes handled for the rating period
• Teaching methods and strategies elicited 115-129% interaction from a class
• Inductive method/deductive method was 115-129% used in teaching a lesson

• Cooperative learning strategies was 115-129% effective when used


• ICT integration is 115-129% evident

• Results of student observations/appraisal are 115-129% used as basis for follow-up.

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

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 100-114% and above of the classes handled for the rating period
• Teaching methods and strategies elicited 100-114% interaction from a class
• Inductive method/deductive method was 100-114% used in teaching a lesson

• Cooperative learning strategies was 100-114% effective when used


• ICT integration is 100-114% evident

• Results of student observations/appraisal are 100-114% 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 51-99% of the classes handled for the rating period

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

• Teaching methods and strategies elicited 51-99% interaction from a class

• Inductive method/deductive method was 51-99% used in teaching a lesson

• Cooperative learning strategies was 51-99% effective when used


• ICT integration is 51-99% evident
• Results of student observations/appraisal are 51-99% 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 50% and below of the classes handled for the rating period
• Teaching methods and strategies elicited 50% and below 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.

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

5 - Outstanding
• Pupils were 130% and the 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 100-114% guided in the observation of classroom rules and the guidelines as evidenced by
descriptive rating in the report card/journal
2 - Unsatisfactory
• Pupils were 51-99% 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

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

5 - Outstanding
• Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal were 130% 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 115-129% maintained

• Attendance checking was 115-129% systematically carried out


3 - Satisfactory
• Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal were 100-114% maintained

• Attendance checking was 100-114% systematically carried out


2 - Unsatisfactory
• Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal were 51-99% maintained

• Attendance checking was 51-99% systematically carried out


1 - Poor
• Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal were 50% and below
consistently maintained

• Attendance checking was 50% and below systematically carried out

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

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 130% and above of 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)
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.

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

• Class record reflected the bases of 115-129% 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 dilivery
• Class record reflected the bases of 100-114% of pupils' ratings in all classess/subject areas handled

• Students' portfolio contained 100-114% of his accomplishment

• Table of specifications is 100-114% prepared for tests that require it

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

• Table of specifications showed 100-114% congruence between content and skills test

• Test questions were 100-114% logiclly sequenced

• Pretest and Posttest were 100-114% 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 51-99% of pupils' ratings in all classess/subject areas handled

• Students' portfolio contained 51-99% of his accomplishment

• Table of specifications is 51-99%prepared for tests that require it


• Table of specifications showed 51-99% congruence between content and skills test

• Test questions were 51-99% logiclly sequenced


• Pretest and Posttest were 51-99% 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

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

• 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 130% and above who need it


4 - Very Satisfactory

• Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 115-129% who need it


3 - Satisfactory

• Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 100-114% who need it


2 - Unsatisfactory

• Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 51-99% who need it


1 - Poor

• Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 50% and below who need it

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

5 - Outstanding
130% and above MPS/GSA
4 - Very Satisfactory
115%-129% MPS/ GSA
3 - Satisfactory
100-114% MPS/GSA
2 - Unsatisfactory
51-99% MPS/GSA
1 - Poor
50% and below MPS/GSA
5 - Outstanding

130% and above accomplishment with set agreements met


4 - Very Satisfactory
115-129% of planned meetings producing only set agreements and partial accomplishments of these
3 - Satisfactory
100-114% of planned meetings conducted producing set of agreements
2 - Unsatisfactory

51-99% of planned meetings conducted with minimal results


1 - Poor

50% and below of the planned meetings conducted with no result

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

5 - Outstanding

130% and above accomplishment of set visits successful interventions


4 - Very Satisfactory

115-129% accomplishment of visits with partial success in implementation of interventions


3 - Satisfactory

100-114% accomplishment of visits with suggested planned interventions


2 - Unsatisfactory

51-99% accomplishments of visits with planned interventions


1 - Poor

50% and below accomplishments with no interventions


5 - Outstanding

130% and above project accomplishment with full documentation report on completion
4 - Very Satisfactory

115-129% project accomplishment with partial completion


3 - Satisfactory

100-114% project initiative only with no completion report


2 - Unsatisfactory

51-99% project initiative only with no completion report


1 - Poor

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

No project/event/activity initiated

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

5 - Outstanding
3 action research conducted with full documentation on completion of interventions.
4 - Very Satisfactory
2 action research conducted with full documentation on completion of interventions.
3 - Satisfactory
1 action research conducted with full documentation on completion of interventions.
2 - Unsatisfactory

Identified classroom/learning problems with research proposals


1 - Poor

Only classroom/learning/issues identified


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

#RSH#
RATING
SCOR
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) E*
Q E T Ave.

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

0
0

Approving Officer

#RSH#
Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form

Name of Employee: Name of Rater:


Position: Position:
Review Period: Date of Review:
Bureau/Center/Service/Division:

Weight RATING
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE per PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines)
KRA
Q E T
Teaching- • Prepared lesson 5 - Outstanding
Learning plans and daily logs
Process of activities • All daily lesson plans had the following objective, subject matter, procedures, evaluation and
including assignment
appropriate • Each part had a full description of what to do with an example
adequate and
updated • Objective was specific, measurable, attainable, result-oriented and time-bound
instructional
materials with in the • 100.% developed high order thinking skills
rating period • Attained 100% of the desired learning competencies
• 100% 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
• 85-99% developed high order thinking skills
• Attained 85-99%% of the desired learning competencies
• 85-99% 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
• 75-84% develop high order thinking skills
• Attained 75-84% of the desired learning competencies
• 75-84% based on the approved budget of work

Teaching- 2 - Unsatisfactory
Learning
Process • Had 2 of the five parts
• Each part had no description with out example
• Objectives was stated with 1-2 behavioral indicator missing
• 51-74%% develop high order thinking skills
• Attained 51-74% of the desired learning competencies
• 51-74% based on the approved budget of work
1 - Poor
• Had 1 of the five parts
• Each part had no description with out example
• Objectives was stated without behavioral indicator
• 50% and below develop high order thinking skills
• 50% and below attained the desired learning competencies
• 50% and below based on the approved budget of work
• Facilitated learning 5 - Outstanding
in the classroom
through functional
lesson plans, daily • The teacher established challenging and measurable goal/s for student learning that is
logs and innovative aligned with the DepEd standards in the curriculum.
teaching strategies • The goal reflected a range of student learner needs.

• Has provided individual activities to at least 100% of the classes handled for the rating period
• Teaching methods and strategies elicited 100% interaction from a class
• Inductive method/deductive method was 100% used in teaching a lesson
• Cooperative learning strategies was 100% effective when used

• ICT integration is 100% evident


• Results of student observations/appraisal are 100% 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/ curriculum.
• The teacher explained the importance of the goal and the appropriateness to students.
• Has provided individual activities for at least 85-99% of the classes handled for the rating
period
• Teaching methods and strategies elicited 85-99% interaction from a class
• Inductive method/deductive method was 115-129% used in teaching a lesson
• Cooperative learning strategies was 115-129% effective when used
• ICT integration is 115-129% evident
• Results of student observations/appraisal are 115-129% used as basis for follow-up.

Teaching- 3 - Satisfactory
Learning
Process • The teacher clearly communicated a focus for student learning that is aligned with the
DepEd standards/curriculum

• Has provided individual activities for a 75-84% of the classes handled for the rating period
• Teaching methods and strategies elicited 75-84%% interaction from a class
• Inductive method/deductive method was 75-84% used in teaching a lesson
• Cooperative learning strategies was 75-84% effective when used
• ICT integration is 75-84% evident
• Results of student observations/appraisal are 75-84% 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 51-74% of the classes handled for the rating period
• Teaching methods and strategies elicited 51-74% interaction from a class
• Inductive method/deductive method was 51-74% used in teaching a lesson
• Cooperative learning strategies was 51-74% effective when used
• ICT integration is 51-74% evident

• Results of student observations/appraisal are 51-74% 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 50% and below of the classes handled for the rating
period

• Teaching methods and strategies elicited 50% and below 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.


• Initiated discipline of 5 - Outstanding
students including
classroom rules, • Pupils were 100% guided in the observation of classroom rules and the guidelines as
guidelines and evidenced by descriptive rating in the report card/journal
individual and group 4 - Very Satisfactory
task with in the rating
period • Pupils were 100% guided in the observation of classroom rules and the guidelines as
evidenced by descriptive rating in the report card/journal

Teaching- 3 - Satisfactory
Learning
Process • Pupils were 100-114% guided in the observation of classroom rules and the guidelines as
evidenced by descriptive rating in the report card/journal
2 - Unsatisfactory
• Pupils were 51-99% 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
• Monitored 5 - Outstanding
attendance, diversity
and appreciation, • Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal were 100%
safe, positive and maintained
motivating • Attendance checking was 100% systematically carried out
environment, overall
physical 4 - Very Satisfactory
atmosphere,
cleanliness and • Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal were 85-99%
orderliness of maintained
classrooms including • Attendance checking was 85-99% systematically carried out
proper waste
disposal daily
cleanliness and
orderliness of
classrooms including
proper waste
disposal daily 3 - Satisfactory
• Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal were 75-84%
maintained
• Attendance checking was 75-84% systematically carried out
2 - Unsatisfactory
• Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal were 51-74%
maintained
• Attendance checking was 51-74% systematically carried out
1 - Poor
• Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of floors, toilets and proper waste disposal were 50% and
below consistently maintained
• Attendance checking was 50% and below systematically carried out
• • Monitored and 5 - Outstanding
Pupils/Stud evaluated and
ent maintained
Outcomes pupils/students' • Evidence showed that the teacher purposely plans assessments and varies assessment
progress with in the choices to match the different student needs, abilities, and learning styles.
rating period
• E-Class record reflected the bases of 100% pupils' ratings in all classess/subject areas
handled
• Students' portfolio contained 100% of his accomplishment
• Table of specifications is 100% prepared for tests that require it

• Table of specifications showed 100% and above congruence between content and skills test

Pupils/Stud • Test questions were 100% and above logiclly sequenced
ent • Pretest and Posttest were 100% and above administered in all classes/subject area
Outcomes (Supported by analysis report on subject area per class/grade level)
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 85-99% of pupils' ratings in all classess/subject areas
handled
• Students' portfolio contained 85-99% of his accomplishment
• Table of specifications is 85-99% prepared for tests that require it
• Table of specifications showed 85-99% congruence between content and skills test
• Test questions were 85-99% logiclly sequenced
• Pretest and Posttest were 85-99% 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
• Class record reflected the bases of 75-84% of pupils' ratings in all classess/subject areas
handled
• Students' portfolio contained 75-84% of his accomplishment
• Table of specifications is 75-84% prepared for tests that require it

• Table of specifications showed 75-84% congruence between content and skills test
• Test questions were 85-84% logiclly sequenced

• Pretest and Posttest were 75-84% 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 51-74% of pupils' ratings in all classess/subject areas
handled
• Students' portfolio contained 51-74% of his accomplishment
• Table of specifications is 51-99%prepared for tests that require it
• Table of specifications showed 51-74% congruence between content and skills test
• Test questions were 51-74% logically sequenced
• Pretest and Posttest were 51-74% administered in all classes/subject area (Supported by
analysis report on subject area per class/grade level)
• 1 - Poor
Pupils/Stud
ent • No evidence of student monitoring or evaluation of student progress
Outcomes
• 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
• Conducted 5 - Outstanding
Remediation/enrich
ment programs to
improve • Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 130% and above who need it
performance 4 - Very Satisfactory
indicators
• Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 115-129% who need it
3 - Satisfactory
• Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 100-114% who need it
2 - Unsatisfactory
• Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 51-99% who need it
1 - Poor
• Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 50% and below who need it
• Attained the 5 - Outstanding
required GSA for
grade level and 93-100% and above MPS/GSA
learning areas as 4 - Very Satisfactory
reflected in sf5
85-92% MPS/ GSA
3 - Satisfactory
75-84% MPS/GSA
2 - Unsatisfactory
70-74% MPS/GSA
1 - Poor
70% and below MPS/GSA
• • Conducted 5 - Outstanding
Community periodic PTA
Involvemen meetings/conferenc 100% and above accomplishment with set agreements met
t es 4 - Very Satisfactory

85-99% of planned meetings producing only set agreements and partial accomplishments of
these
3 - Satisfactory
75-84% of planned meetings conducted producing set of agreements
• 2 - Unsatisfactory
Community
Involvemen 51-74% of planned meetings conducted with minimal results
t 1 - Poor
50% and below of the planned meetings conducted with no result
• Visited parents of
students needing 5 - Outstanding
academic 100% accomplishment of set visits successful interventions
monitoring/follow- 4 - Very Satisfactory
up with in the rating
period
85-99% accomplishment of visits with partial success in implementation of interventions
3 - Satisfactory
75-84% accomplishment of visits with suggested planned interventions
2 - Unsatisfactory
51-74% accomplishments of visits with planned interventions
1 - Poor
50% and below accomplishments with no interventions
• 5 - Outstanding
Undertaken/initiate
d
projects/events/acti 100% and above project accomplishment with full documentation report on completion
vities with external 4 - Very Satisfactory
funding/sponsorship
within the target 85-99% project accomplishment with partial completion
date 3 - Satisfactory
75-84% project initiative only with no completion report
2 - Unsatisfactory
51-74% project initiative only with no completion report
1 - Poor
No project/event/activity initiated
• • Conducted 5 - Outstanding
Professional problem/classroom
Growth and based action
Developme research 3 action research conducted with full documentation on completion of interventions.
nt
4 - Very Satisfactory

2 action research conducted with full documentation on completion of interventions.


3 - Satisfactory
1 action research conducted with full documentation on completion of interventions.
2 - Unsatisfactory
Identified classroom/learning problems with research proposals

1 - Poor
Only classroom/learning/issues identified
• • 5 - Outstanding
Professional Initiated/Participate
Growth and d in co- Initiated at least 2 co-curricular/ school activities with documented results
Developme curricular/school 4 - Very Satisfactory
nt activities with in the
rating period 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
• Produced 5 - Outstanding
publications/
creative work for Produced publication/creative work published in National Circulation/ DepEd Post/ CSC
school Newsletters and similar publications
paper/division 4 - Very Satisfactory
publication with in
the target date 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
0 CHRISTOPHER D. ESTEBAN ALVIN T. YALUNG, Ph
Ratee Rater OIC- School Head
ING SCOR
E*
Ave.
N T. YALUNG, Ph.D.
IC- School Head
COMPETENCIES

CORE BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCIES


improve performance. Examples may include doing something better,
Self-Management faster, at alower cost, more efficiently; or improving quality, costumer
satisfaction, morale, without setting any specific goal.
1 Sets personal goals and direction, needs and development. 4

Undertakes personal actions and behaviors that are clear and Teamwork
2 3.2
purposive and takes into account personal goals and values 4 1 4
Willingly does his/her share of responsibilty.
congruent to that of the organization.
2 Promotes collaboration and removes barriers to teamwork and goal
Displays emotional maturity and enthusiasm for and is challenged by 3 accomplishment across the organization 3 3.4
3
higher goals
Prioritize work tasks and schedules (through gantt charts, checklists, 3
4 3 3
etc.) to achieve goals. Applies negotiation principles in arriving at win-win agreements.
5 Sets high quality, challenging, realistic goals for self and others 2 4 4
Drives consensus and team ownership of decisions.
5
Works constructively and collaboratively with others and across
Professionalism and Ethics 3
organizations to accomplish organizational goals and objectives.

Demonstrates the values and behavior enshrined in the Norms of Service Orientation
Conduct and Ethical Standards for public officials and employee (RA 1
1 6713). Can explain and articulate organizational directions, issues and problems.
4 4
2
Practices ethical and professional behavior and conduct taking into
2 3.6 Takes personal responsibilty for dealing with and/or correcting costumer 3
account the impact of his/her actions and decisions. 3 service issues and concerns 3
Maintains professional image: being trustworthy, regularity of 3 Initiates activities that promotes advocacy for men and women
3
attendance and punctuality, good grooming and communication. 4 empowerment. 3
4
Participates in updating of office vision, mission, mandates & strategies
4 Makes personal sacrifices to meet the organization's needs.
3 based on DepEd strategies and directions. 3
Acts with a sense pf urgency and responsibility to meet the 5
Develops and adopts service improvement programs through simplified
5 organization's needs, improves systems and help others improve
procedures that will further enhance service delivery.
their effectiveness. 4 2
Result Focus Innovation
1 Examines the root cause of problems and suggests effective solutions.
Achieves results with optimal use of time and resources most of the
1 Fosters new ideas, processes, and suggests bettter ways to do things (cost
time.
3 and/or operational efficiency). 3
Avoids rework, mistakes and wastage through effective work 2 Demonstrates an ability to think "beyond the box". Continuously focuses on
2
methods by placing organizational needs before personal needs. 3 improving personal productivity to create higher value and results. 3
Delivers error-free outputs most of the time by conforming to 3
standard operating procedures correctly and consistently. Able to
Promotes a creative climate and inspires co-workers to develop original
3 produce very satisfactoy quality of work in terms of 3.2 3
ideas or solutions.
usefulness/acceptability and completeness with no supervision
required.
3 4
Expresses a desire to do better and may express frustration at waste 4
Translates creative thinking into tangible changes and solutions that improve the work unit and
4 or inefficiency. May focus on new or more precise ways of meeting organization.
goals set. 4 2
5 Uses ingenious methods to accomplish responsibilties. Demonstrates resourcefulness and the
5 Makes specific changes in the system or in own work methods to
3 ability to succeed with minimal resources. 3
5 - Role Model; 4 - Consistently demonstrates; 3 - Most of the time demonstrates; 2 - Sometimes demonstrates; 1 - Rarely demonstrates
DEPED RPMS form - DEPED form -Teachers
CORE SKILLS Computer / ICT Skills
Oral Communication Prepares basic compositions ( e.g., letters, reports, spreadsheets and
1 graphic presentations using Word Processing and Excel. 2
Identifies different computer parts, turns the computer on/off, and work on
1 Follows instructions accurately. 3.4 a given task with acceptable speed and accuracy and connects computer 2.2
4 2 peripherals ( e.g., printers, modems, multi-media projectors, etc.) 3
2 Expresses self clearly, fluently and articulately. 3 3 Prepares simple presentations using Powerpoint. 2
Utilizes technologies to : access information to enhance professional
3 Uses appropriate medium for the message. productivity, assists in conducting research and communicate through local
3 4 and global professional networks. 2
4 Recommends appropriate and updated technology to enhance productivity
Adjust communication style to others. 3 5 and professional practice. 2
5 Guides discussions between and among peers to meet an objective. 4
Written Communication
Knows the different written business communication formats used in
1 the DepEd. 3
Writes routine correspondence/communications, narrative and
descriptive report based on ready available information data with 3
2 minimal spelling or grammatical error/s (e.g. Memos, minutes, etc.) 3 OVERALL COMPETENCY RATINGS
Secures information from required references (i.e., Directories,
3 schedules, notices, instructions) for specific purposes. 3 CORE BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCIES 3.11
Self-edits words, numbers, phonetic notation and content, if
4 necessary. 3
Demonstrates clarity, fluency, impact, conciseness, and effectiveness
5 in his/her written communications. 3 OVERALL RATING 3.11

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 - DEPED form - For Teachers


PART III: SUMMARY OF RATINGS FOR DISCUSSION

Final Performance Results Rating

Accomplishments of KRAs and Objectives


0.00
Employee-Superior Agreement
The signatures below confirm that the employee and his/her superior have agreed to the contents of the performance as captured in this form.

Name of Employee: 0 Name of Superior: Err:509


Signature: Signature:
Date: Date:

PART IV: DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Action Plan
Strengths Development Needs (Recommended Developmental Timeline Resources Needed
Intervention)
0 Err:509 0
Ratee Rater Approving Officer

DEPED RPMS form - DEPED form -For Teacher |