IPCRF Teacher I-III (2016-2017) Revised

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW FORM (IPCRF) FOR TEA
Name of Employee: MR. ADONIS P. BESA

Position: TEACHER - II
Office/Division: ROXAS CITY
TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
WEIGHT PER QUALITY EFFICIENCY
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE
KRA
5
MFP 2: I. TEACHING- Established a conducive, safe learning June 2016 5 out 5 indicators were met Establish a conducive, safe learning
Provision of LEARNING PROCESS environment (Project Safe) and maintained an March 2017
40% environment and maintained an effective
Quality Basic effective classroom management, and overall classroom management, and overall physical
Education physical classrooms' atmosphere by classrooms' atmosphere with vey low cost.
manifesting the following indicators :
(1) Maintaining cleanliness and orderliness in
the classroom and zone area assignment,
(2) Functional health corner, 4
(3) Well-lighted and ventilated classroom,
(4) Observed proper waste 4 out 5 indicators were met. With low cost.
segregation, and (5) maintained a
safe and friendly classroom. (5%) 3
3 out of 5 indicators are met With minimal cost
2
2 out of 5 indicators are me With high cost.
1
1 out of 5 indicators are met. With very high cost.
WEIGHT PER
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE QUALITY EFFICIENCY
KRA
5
MFP 2: I. TEACHING-LEARNING 2. Improved teaching-learning process June 2016
Provision of PROCESS
by preparing functional lesson March 2017 40% 81% - 100% of the required
competencies in the subject areas
Developed Support Instructional Materials
(SIMs) with very low cost.
Quality Basic taught was prepared with 5
plans/daily logs with contextualized
Education contextualized content in the daily
content and appropriate SIMs lesson plans/ logs and appropriate
(print/non-print) in the subject area/s (10) SIMs (print or non-print).
taught based on the required
competencies. (10%)
(KRA's # 3.1 OPCRF)
4
61% - 80% of the required With low cost.
taught was prepared with 4
contextualized content in the daily
lesson plans/ logs and appropriate
(8) SIMs (print or non-print).
3
41% - 60% of the required with minimal cost.
2
21% - 40% of the required with high cost.
1
1% - 20% of the required with high cost.
WEIGHT PER
MFOs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE QUALITY EFFICIENCY
KRA
5
MFP 2: I. TEACHING-LEARNING 3. Improved teaching and learning June 2016 At least 5 observations with an Deliver the lesson using developed Support
Provision of PROCESS
process through effective and efficient March 2017 40% average rating of 3.5 to 4 (HP) as Instructional Materials (SIMs) with very low
Quality Basic reflected in the CB Past form 3 cost.
delivery of the lessons (25%)
Education (Observation Sheet)
4
With 4 observations with an average With low cost
rating scale of 2.5 to 3.4 (P) as
reflected in the CB Past form 3
(Observation Sheet)
3
With 3 observations with an average With minimal cost.
rating scale of 1.5 to 2.4 (B) as
(Observation Sheet)
2
With 2 observations with an average With high cost.
rating scale of 1 to 1.4 (BB) as
(Observation Sheet)
1
Deliver the lessons but not observed. With very high cost.

WEIGHT PER
KRA
5
MFP 2: II. PUPIL/STUDENT June 2016 35% 81%-100% of pupils/students Achieved the desired mastery level of the
Provision of OUTCOMES 1. Achieved the desired mastery level of March 2017 achieved the average of 75% and learning competencies through assessment of
Quality Basic above the mastery level of the pupil/ students' with very low cost.
the learning competencies through
Education learning competencies within the 4
assessment of pupil/ students' progress grading periods.
as reflected in the grading period
average grade. (15%)
Note: Relief Teachers may use the average

grade of the subject area taught. 4
61% - 80% of pupils/students With low cost.
achieved the average of 75%
mastery level of the learning
competencies within the 4 grading
periods.
3
41% 60% of pupils/students With minimal cost
periods.
2
21% - 40% of pupils/students With high cost
periods.
1
1% - 20% of pupils/students with very high cost
periods.
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE WEIGHT PER KRA QUALITY EFFICIENCY
MFP 2: II. PUPIL/STUDENT 2. Reduced the number of identified non- June 2016 81%-100% of the identified non-readers With minimal cost
Provision of OUTCOMES readers by using appropriate and
March 2017 35% reduced to 0 non-readers.
Quality Basic
innovative teaching strategies. (10% for
Education
Elementary Schools/ 20% for Secondary
Schools)
4
Schools)
61% - 80% of the identified non-readers With minimal cost

reduced to 0 non-readers.
41% - 60% of the identified non- With minimal cost

readers reduced to 0 non-readers
2
21% - 40% of the identified /non-readers With minimal cost
1% - 20% of the identified non-readers With minimal cost

WEIGHT PER
KRA
5
MFP 2: III. COMMUNITY 2. Actively involved in building June 2016 5% 5 out of 5 indicators were observed. Actively involved in building
Provision of INVOLVEMENT Partnership/Linkages obsering the following March 2017 partnership/Linkages with very low cost.
Quality Basic indicators: (a) Prepared a list of
Education possible donors/benefactors, (b)
Participated in any activities conducted by 4
PTA/SGC/LGU and other stakeholders
(c) Developed Action Action Plan on
Partnership/Linkages
(d) Prepared/Crafted MOA or similar documents
(e) Prepared accomplishment Report on
Quality Basic indicators: (a) Prepared a list of
Education possible donors/benefactors, (b)
Participated in any activities conducted by
PTA/SGC/LGU and other stakeholders 4 out 5 indicators were observed With with low cost.
(c) Developed Action Action Plan on
Partnership/Linkages
(d) Prepared/Crafted MOA or similar documents
3
(e) Prepared accomplishment Report on
partnership/linkages related activities. (2.5%) 3 out 5 indicators were observed with minimal cost
2
2 out 5 indicators were observed
1
1 out 5 indicators were observed

5
MFP 2: III. COMMUNITY 3. Conducted home visitations/follow- June 2016 5% Conducted 5 or more home Conducted 5 or more home visitations to the
Provision of INVOLVEMENT ups/parent-teacher dialogue to the March 2017 visitations to the identified identified PARDOs/SARDOs with minimal cost
Quality Basic PARDOs/SARDOs.
identified PARDOs/SARDOs
Education
(agreement). (2.5%)
4
Conducted 4 home visitations to the Conducted 4 home visitations to the identified
identified PARDOs/SARDOs. PARDOs/SARDOs withwith minimal cost
3
identified PARDOs/SARDOs PARDOs/SARDOs with minimal cost
2
identified PARDOs/SARDOs PARDOs/SARDOs with minimal cost.
1
Conducted 1 home visitation to the Conducted 1 home visitation to the identified
identified PARDOs/SARDOs PARDOs/SARDOs with minimal cost

WEIGHT PER
KRA
5
MFP 2: IV. PROFESSIONAL 1. Served as a resource person in June 2016 10% Served as resource person in the Delivered the topic using very low cost
Provision of DEVELOPMENT March 2017 National/Regional/Division Level materials.
Quality Basic any professional development
Education activities e.g. workshop, training
programs, scouting and other
DepEd related activities. (5%) 4
Served as resource person in the Delivered the topic using low cost materials.
District Level
3
Served as resource person in the Delivered the topic using minimal cost
Cluster Level materials.
2
Served as resource person in the Delivered the topic using high cost materials.
School Level
1
Served as resource person in the Delivered the topic using very high cost
Grade Level/Department. materials.
WEIGHT PER
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE
KRA
QUALITY EFFICIENCY
5
MFP 2: IV. PROFESSIONAL 2. Enrolled in graduate studies June 2016 10% Graduated the Masters/Doctoral
Provision of DEVELOPMENT (graduated Master/ Doctorate programs) March 2017 degree programs.
Quality Basic
or skills enhancement trainings, or
Education
recipient of any scholarship program.
(5%) 4
or skills enhancement trainings, or
Education
recipient of any scholarship program.
(5%)
Completed the Academic
Requirements in Masters degree
program relevant to subject
area/specialization taught or have
garnered 45 Units/NC II Holder for at
least 2 years TVE Specialization.
3
Enrolled in a graduate studies
program and garnered at least 27 to
36 Units in Masters degree program
relevant to subject area/specialization
taught /NC II Holder for at least 1
year TVE Specialization.
2
Enrolled in a graduate studies program
and garnered at least 18 to 24 Units in
Masters degree program relevant to
subject area/specialization taught.
1

5
MFP 2: V. PLUS FACTOR 1. Served as chairman/ June 2016 5 out of 5 indicators were observed Served as chairman/ coordinator/adviser/member of any
Provision of coordinator/adviser/member of any clubs/ March 2017 10% clubs/ organization in school, cluster, and district or
Quality Basic division level with very low cost
organization in school, cluster, and district or
Education division level by the observing the following
indicators:(a) prepared action plan,
(b) Implemented the action plan, (c) actively
facilitated/participated in the school, cluster, 4
district, and division activities/contest, (d) 4 out of 5 indicators were observed With low cost
Prepared accomplishment reports (e)
Documented the Activities. (2%)
3
3 out of 5 indicators were observed With minimal cost
2
2 out of 5 indicators were observed With high cost
1
1 out of 5 indicators were observed With very high cost
5
MFP 2: V. PLUS FACTOR 2. Conducted an action/descriptive/experimental June 2016 6 out of 7 indicators were observed Conducted an action/descriptive/experimental research
Provision of research that brought an impact in improving March 2017 10% that brought an impact in improving pupils/students
Quality Basic pupils/students academic performance by observing academic performance with very low cost.
Education the following indicators: (1). Prepared
Research Proposal, (2) Approved Research
Proposal, (3) Implemented the Research Proposal,
(4) Documented the
Implementation of the Research, 4
(5) Presented the approved accomplishment report of 5 out of 7 indicators were observed with low cost
the Research conducted (6) Observed
Basic Education Research Format (BERF),
(7) Results of the Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) 3
conducted by the DepEd Division Research 4 out of 7 indicators were observed With minimal cost
Committee(2%).
2
3 out of 7 indicators were observed With high cost
1
2 out of 7 indicators were observed With very high cost
5
MFP 2: V. PLUS FACTOR 4. Served as judge/officiating June 2016 Served as coach/trainer of pupils/students With very low cost review materials.
Provision of
official/coach/trainer of pupils/students
March 2017 10% who won a prize/award or participated in the
Quality Basic Regional/National level Contest.
Education in any curricular or extra-curricular
competitions or events in school,
cluster, district, division, regional or the 4
national level contests. (2%) Served as coach/trainer of pupils/students
who won a prize/award or participated in the
Division Level Contest. With low cost review materials.
3
Served as coach/trainer of pupils/students
District Level Contest. With minimal cost review materials.
2
Cluster Level Contest. With high cost review materials.
1
School Level Contest. With high cost review materials.
5
MFP 2: V. PLUS FACTOR 8. Achieved zero dropouts by providing June 2016 81%-100% of the PARDOs/SARDOs still go With minimal cost
Provision of
counseling, guidance and other
March 2017 10% back to school.
Quality Basic
Education appropriate interventions to
pupils/students (PARDO/SARDO). (2%)
4
61%-80% of the PARDOs/SARDOs still go With minimal cost
back to school.
3
back to school.
2
21%-40% of the PARDOs/SARDOs still With minimal cost
go back to school.
21%-40% of the PARDOs/SARDOs still With minimal cost
go back to school.
1
back to school.
5
MFP 2: V. PLUS FACTOR 9. Received an Award/Certificate of June 2016 Received an Award/Certificate of With minimal cost
Provision of
Recognition/Merit /Commendation for
March 2017 10% Recognition/Merit /Commendation
Quality Basic
Education invaluable contribution, meritorious
service and outstanding performance .
(2%)
OVERALL RATING FOR ASSESSMENT
Ratee: Rater:
Adjectival Rating Scale

Oustatnding 4.500 - 5.000
Very Satisfactory 3.500 - 4.499
Satisfactory 2.500 - 3.499
Unsatisfactory 1.500 - 2.499
PART III:SUMMARY OF RATINGS FOR DISCUSSION
Final Performance Results Rating

Accomplishment of KRAs and Objectives
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: MR. ADONIS P. BESA Name of Superior:
Signature: Signature:
Date: Date:
PART IV:DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Strengths Development Needs Action Plan (Recommended Developmental Intervention)
Feedback:
Rater
PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND COACHING FORM

Date Critical Incidence Description Output
VIEW FORM (IPCRF) FOR TEACHER I-III
Name of Rater:
Position:
Date of Review:
TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION
ACTUAL RATING
EFFICIENCY TIMELINESS SCORE
RESULT
5 Q E T A
sh a conducive, safe learning Established Project SAFE daily
nment and maintained an effective
oom management, and overall physical
ooms' atmosphere with vey low cost.
4
With low cost. Established Project SAFE daily
3
With minimal cost Established Project SAFE daily
2
With high cost. Established Project SAFE daily
1
With very high cost. Established Project SAFE daily
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION
EFFICIENCY TIMELINESS RATING
ACTUAL
SCORE
5 RESULT Q E T A
oped Support Instructional Materials Prepared functional daily lesson plans/
with very low cost. logs with appropriate SIMs (print or non-
print) in all areas taught a day before the
delivery of the lesson and 5 or more
contextualized content in the subject
area taught were developed and
integrated 2 months before the end of
March
4
With low cost. 4 contextualized content in the subject
integrated 1 month before the end of
March 2017.
3
with minimal cost. 3 contextualized content in the subject
integrated 3 weeks before the end of
March 2017.
2
with high cost. 2 contextualized content in the subject
integrated two weeks before the end of
March.
1
with high cost. 1 contextualized content in the subject
integrated one week before the end of
March.
ACTUAL RATING
RESULT
5 Q E T A
ver the lesson using developed Support Has been observed, 2 months before
uctional Materials (SIMs) with very low the end of March.
cost.
4
With low cost Has been observed, 1 month before the
end of March.
3
With minimal cost. Has been observed, 3 weeks before the
end of March.
2
With high cost. Has been observed, 2 weeks before the
end of March.
1
With very high cost. Has been observed,1 week before the
end of March.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ACTUAL
RATING
EFFICIENCY TIMELINESS RESULT SCORE
5 Q E T A
ed the desired mastery level of the Achieved the desired mastery level of
g competencies through assessment of the learning competencies at the end of
students' with very low cost. the 4 grading period.
4
With low cost. Achieved the desired mastery level of
the learning competencies at the end of
the 4 grading period.
3
With minimal cost Achieved the desired mastery level of
2
With high cost Achieved the desired mastery level of
1
with very high cost Achieved the desired mastery level of
RATING
EFFICIENCY TIMELINESS ACTUAL RESULT SCORE
5 Q E T A
nimal cost The identified non-readers reduced to 0 non-
reader three months before the end of
March.
4
reader two months before the end of
March. .
inimal cost The identified non-readers reduced to 0

non-reader one month before the end of
March.
2
reader two weeks before the end of March.

reader one week before the end of March.
ACTUAL RATING
RESULT
5 Q E T A
y involved in building 5 out of 5 indicators were observed three
rship/Linkages with very low cost. months before the end of March.
4
ith low cost. 4 out of 5 indicators were observed two
months before the end of March.
3
nimal cost 3 out of 5 indicators were observed one
month before the end of March.
2
2 out of 5 indicators were observed two
weeks before the end of March.
1
1 out of 5 indicators were observed one
week before the end of March.
RATING
5 Q E T A
cted 5 or more home visitations to the Conducted 5 or more home visitations to
ed PARDOs/SARDOs with minimal cost the identified PARDOs/SARDOs three
months before the end of March.
4
cted 4 home visitations to the identified Conducted 4 home visitations to the
Os/SARDOs withwith minimal cost identified PARDOs/SARDOs two months
before the end of March.
3
Os/SARDOs with minimal cost identified PARDOs/SARDOs one month
2
Os/SARDOs with minimal cost. identified PARDOs/SARDOs two weeks
1
cted 1 home visitation to the identified Conducted 1 home visitation to the
Os/SARDOs with minimal cost identified PARDOs/SARDOs one week

ACTUAL RATING
RESULT
5 Q E T A
ed the topic using very low cost Within the School Year.
als.
4
ed the topic using low cost materials. Within the School Year.
3
ed the topic using minimal cost Within the School Year.
als.
2
ed the topic using high cost materials. Within the School Year.
1
ed the topic using very high cost Within the School Year.
als.
ACTUAL RATING
RESULT
5 Q E T A
4
3
1
RATING
5 Q E T A
as chairman/ coordinator/adviser/member of any Served as chairman/
rganization in school, cluster, and district or coordinator/adviser/member of any clubs/
level with very low cost organization in school, cluster, and district or
division level three months before the end of
March.
4
w cost Two months before the end of March.
3
nimal cost One month before the end of March.
2
h cost Two weeks before the end of March.
1
y high cost One week before the end of March.
RATING
5 Q E T A
ted an action/descriptive/experimental research Conducted an action/descriptive/experimental
ught an impact in improving pupils/students research that brought an impact in improving
ic performance with very low cost. pupils/students academic performance three
months before the end of March
4
cost Two months before the end of March.
3
nimal cost One month before the end of March.
2
h cost Two weeks before the end of March.
1
y high cost One week before the end of March.
RATING
5 Q E T A
With very low cost review materials. Three months before end of March.
4
Two months before end of March.
With low cost review materials.
3
One months before end of March.
With minimal cost review materials.
2
Two weeks before end of March.
With high cost review materials.
1
One week before end of March.
With high cost review materials.
RATING
5 Q E T A
With minimal cost 0 dropout by end of the school year
4
With minimal cost 1 dropout by end of the school year
3
With minimal cost 2 dropouts by end of the school year
2
1
RATING
5 Q E T A
nimal cost within the school year.
Approved:
ROEL F. BERMEJO, CESO V

Schools Division Superintendent
FOR DISCUSSION
Rating Adjectival Rating
of Superior: MRS. EMILDA DELA CRUZ

re:
PLANS
an (Recommended Developmental Intervention) Timeline Resources Needed
Ratee
D COACHING FORM
Signature of
Impact on Job/Action Plan
Rater Ratee

IPCRF Teacher I-III (2016-2017) Revised

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

IPCRF Teacher I-III (2016-2017) Revised

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW FORM (IPCRF) FOR TEA

Name of Employee: MR. ADONIS P. BESA

(KRA's # 3.1 OPCRF)

TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING

Note: Relief Teachers may use the average

MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE WEIGHT PER KRA QUALITY EFFICIENCY

61% - 80% of the identified non-readers With minimal cost

41% - 60% of the identified non- With minimal cost

1% - 20% of the identified non-readers With minimal cost

MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE WEIGHT PER KRA QUALITY EFFICIENCY

TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING

TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING

OVERALL RATING FOR ASSESSMENT

Adjectival Rating Scale

Final Performance Results Rating

PART IV:DEVELOPMENT PLANS

PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND COACHING FORM

TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION

inimal cost The identified non-readers reduced to 0

nimal cost The identified non-readers reduced to 0 non-

TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION

With low cost review materials.

With minimal cost review materials.

With high cost review materials.

With high cost review materials.

ROEL F. BERMEJO, CESO V

Rating Adjectival Rating

of Superior: MRS. EMILDA DELA CRUZ

Anda mungkin juga menyukai