Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form

Name of Employee: Name of Rater:

Position: MASTER TEACHER Position: PRINCIPAL /HEAD TEACHER

Review Period: Date of Review:

OFFICE:

TO BE FILLED IN DURING PLANNING TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION

MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINEWeight

per KRA

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS(Quality, Efficiency, Timeliness)

ACTUAL RESULTS RATING SCORE*

A. Instructional Competence

1. Handled 360 minutes actual teaching loads daily and related work

40% 5 - Outstanding 100% and above required teaching load with teaching related work (ancilliary services) handled for the year4 –Very Satisfactory 95% required teaching load with teaching related

work (ancilliary services) handled for the year3 – Satisfactory 90% required teaching load with teaching related

work (ancilliary services) handled for the year2 – Unsatisfactory 85% required teaching load with teaching

related work (ancilliary services) handled for the year

1 – Poor 75% and below of required teaching loads

without ancilliary services handled for the year2. Students achieved at least 75 percentage of mastery in all subject areas in the achievement test

5 – Outstanding 75% and above (POM) 4 – Very Satisfactory 59%-74% (POM)3 – Satisfactory 44%-58% (POM)2- Unsatisfactory 29%-43% (POM)1 – Poor 28% and below (POM)

3. Attained 100% of the required learning competencies for the students in every quarter

5- Outstanding 100% of the required competencies in every

quarter completed

1

4- Very Satisfactory 90-99% and above of the required

competencies in every quarter completed3- Satisfactory 80-89% of the required competencies in every

quarter completed2- Unsatisfactory 70-79% of the required competencies in every quarter competed1 – Poor 69% and below of the required competencies in

every quarter completed4. Served as demonstration teacher for school/district/division/regional/national during the year• School (5)• District (4)• Division (3)• Regional (2)• National (1)

5-Outstanding 5 lesson demonstrations4-Very Satisfactory 4 lesson demonstrations3-Satisfactory 3 lesson demonstrations2-Unsatisfactory 2 lesson demonstrations1-Poor No lesson demonstration

B. Instructional Supervision

1. Observed all teachers in a year with post conference.*all teachers in the department (big secondary schools)*all teachers in small secondary schools*all teachers in small elementary schools*all teachers in the assigned grade level for central schools

25% 5 – Outstanding Observed all teachers with post conference and

teacher observation reports held in a year4- Very Satisfactory Observed 75%-99% with post conference and

teacher observation reports held in a year3- Satisfactory Observed 50%-74% with post conference and

teacher observation reports held in a year2 – Unsatisfactory Observed 25%-49% with post conference and

teacher observation reports held in a year1- Poor No observation held in a year

2. Conducted mentoring and coaching activities to teachers in the school quarterly

5 – Outstanding 5 or more teacher mentoring sessions were

conducted in every quarter ( with report)4 – Very Satisfactory 4 teacher mentoring sessions conducted in

every quarter (with report)3 – Satisfactory 3 teacher mentoring sessions conducted in

2

every quarter (with report)2 – Unsatisfactory1-2 teacher mentoring sessions conducted in every

quarter (with report)1 – PoorNo teacher mentoring sessions conducted in every

quarter (with report)C. Professional Growth and Development

1. Conducted at least one action research related to teaching methodologies/strategies/behavior of students

15% 5 – Outstanding Conducted 1 duly approved by the SDO fully implemented in the school and adapted in the district.4 – Very Satisfactory Conducted 1 duly approved by the SDO fully

implemented in the school.3 – Satisfactory Conducted 1 duly approved by the SDO fully implemented in the classroom.2 – Unsatisfactory Proposed an action research with no implementation 1 – Poor. No action research

2. Participated in seminars/workshops/trainings for teachers in specific learning area

5 – Outstanding Participated in 5 seminars/workshops/trainings for teachers in specific learning area (supported by evidence/narrative reports/insights/gains/reflections) approved by SDO4 – Very Satisfactory Participated in 4 seminars/workshops/trainings for teachers in specific learning area (supported by evidence/narrative reports/insights/gains/reflections) approved by SDO3 – Satisfactory Participated in 3 seminars/workshops/trainings for teachers in specific learning area (supported by evidence/narrative reports/insights/gains/reflections) approved by SDO2 – Unsatisfactory Participated in 2 seminars/workshops/trainings for teachers in specific learning area (supported by evidence/narrative Reports/insights/gains/reflections) approved by

3

SDO1 – Poor Participated in 1 seminar/workshop/training for teachers in specific learning area (supported by evidence/narrative reports/insights/gains/reflections) approved by SDO

3. Received (school/district, division, regional , ,national ,international) awards/recognitions within a year

5 – Outstanding International Awarc/Recognition4 – Very Satisfactory National Award/Recognition3 – Satisfactory Regional Award/Recognition2 – Unsatisfactory Division Award/Recognition1 – Poor- School/District Award/Recognition

4. Conducted school-based INSET 5-Outstanding Conducted 5 seminars/workshops/trainings for

teachers in specific learning area (supported by evidence/assessment reports) approved by SDO

4-Very Satisfactory Conducted 4 seminars/workshops/trainings

for teachers in specific learning area (supported by evidence/assessment reports) approved by SDO

3-Satisfactory Conducted 3 seminars/workshops/trainings for teachers in specific learning area (supported by evidence/assessment reports) approved by SDO2-UnsatisfactoryConducted 2 seminars/workshops/trainings for

teachers in specific learning area(supported by evidence/assessment reports) approved by SDO

1-Poor Conducted 1 seminar/workshop/training for teachers in specific learning area (supported by evidence/assessment reports) approved by SDO

D. Curriculum Enrichment

1. Initiated programs and projects related to instructional materials development and delivery (e.g. SIM, modules ,methodology, localized content delivery, contextualized and indigenized content delivery

10% 5 – Outstanding Has originally developed 10 instructional materials approved by the LRM team4 – Very Satisfactory

4

Has originally developed 7 instructional materials approved by the LRM team3 – Satisfactory Has originally developed 5 instructional

materials approved by the LRM team2 – Unsatisfactory Has originally developed 3 instructional materials approved by the LRM team1 – Poor- Has originally developed 1 instructional material approved by the LRM team

E. StakeholdersE ngagement

1. Maintained harmonious relationship with superiors, students, local and public officials and co-teachers

10% 5 – Outstanding No verified complaint4 – Very Satisfactory 1 verified complaint3 – Satisfactory 2 verified complaints2 – Unsatisfactory 3 verified complaints1 – Poor 4 or more verified complaints

F. Plus Factor

. Produced publications/ work for school paper/division publication

2.Officership to Professional Organizations• Region-2• Division-1.5• District/Municipal-1.0• School-.53.Served as OIC4. Resource generation worth at least Php 30,000.00

Each item gets .25 but not to exceed 1 pt for all the items

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

Weighted Average Mean

5

Plus FactorOVERALL RATING

_____________________________ ___________________ Dr. ROWENA C. BANZON, CESO VRater Ratee Approving Authority

6