Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Name of Employee: LUIS VELUZ RALA JR. Name of Rater: ROUSELL LITO ESCASA ALVA
Position: TEACHER III Position: MASTER TEACHER I
Bureau/Center/Service/Division: QUEZON Date of Review: APRIL 5 2019
Rating Period: JUNE 2018- MARCH 2019
TO BE FILLED IN DURING PLANNING TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS RATING
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA (Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness) Q E T Ave
Basic 1. Content 1. Applied knowledge of 7.5% QUALITY
Education Knowledge content within and 5 - Showed knowledge of
Services and Pedagogy across curriculum content and its integration
teaching areas. within and across subject areas
as shown in MOV 1 with a
rating of 7.
4 - Showed knowledge of
content and its integration
within and across subject areas
as shown in MOV 1 with a
rating of 6.
3 - Showed knowledge of 4 0.10
content and its integration
within and across subject areas
as shown in MOV 1 with a
rating of 5.
2 - Showed knowledge of
content and its integration
within and across subject areas
as shown in MOV 1 with a
rating of 4.
1 - No acceptable evidence was
shown
EFFICIENCY
5-Submitted at least 4 lessons
using MOV 1 and supported by
any 1 of the other given MOV. 4 0.10
4-Submitted 3 lessons using
MOV 1 and supported by any 1
of the other given MOV.
to improve performance. Examples may include doing something CORE SKILLS 3.500
better, faster, at a lower cost, more efficiently; or improving
quality, customer satisfaction, morale, without setting any OVERALL RATING 3.725
specific goal.
Rater–Ratee Agreement
The signature below confirm that the employee and his/her superior have agreed on content of this appraisal from and performance rating.
Name of Employee: LUIS V. RALA JR. Name of Superior: TEODOSIO F. LAKIAN, Ph. D.
Signature Signature
Date Date
NUMERICAL ADJECTIVE
DESCRIPTION OF MEANING OF RATING
RATING RATING
5 Outstanding Performance represents an extraordinary level of achievement and commitment in terms of
quality and time, technical skills and knowledge, ingenuity, creativity and initiative.
Employees at this performance level should have demonstrated exceptional job mastery in all
areas of responsibility. Employee achievement and contributions to the organization are of
marked excellence.
4 Very Satisfactory Performance exceeded expectations. All goals, objectives and targets were achieved above
the established standards.
3 Satisfactory Performance met expectations in terms of quality of work, efficiency and timeliness. The
most critical annual goals were met.
2 Unsatisfactory Performance failed to meet expectations, and/or one more of the critical goals were not met.
1 Poor Performance was consistently below expectations, and/or reasonable progress toward critical
goal was not made. Significant improvement is needed in one or more important areas.
This rating scale is based on the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 06, s. 2012 that sets the guidelines on the establishment and
implementation of the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) in all government agencies.
3. Individual employees who feel aggrieved or dissatisfied with their final performance
ratings can file an appeal with the Grievance Committee at their level within ten (10)
working days from the date of receipt of their final performance evaluation rating from
the rater. The ratee, however, shall not be allowed to protest the performance ratings
of co-employees. Ratings obtained by the ratee can only be used as basis for reference
for comparison in appealing the individual performance ratings.