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.

MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES
Delivered the desired learning
competencies as reflected in a
budget of lesson with
appropriate, adequate and
updated instructional materials
WEIGHT Performance Indicators ACTUAL RESULTS
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.
3 – At least 70% of the desired learning
12/3 = 4
competencies with incomplete budget of
30% lesson and very seldom utilized instructional 4 4 4 x 30% =
materials in teaching learning process 1.2
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.

MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES
Initiated discipline of students
including classroom rules,
guidelines through individual
and group tasks within the rating
period
Maintained a safe, motivating
classroom environment and
conducted systematic checking
of learner’s attendance
WEIGHT Performance Indicators ACTUAL RESULTS
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
in the observation of classroom rules and
12/3 = 4
guidelines with the use of teacher
5% 4 4 4 x 5% =
imposed classroom policies as evidenced
.20
by descriptive rating in the report card
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
waste disposal and attendance were 100%
maintained 15/3 = 5
5% 5 5 5 x 5% =
4 – Safety, orderliness, cleanliness, proper
.25
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

Adhered to the existing
assessment principles for learner
performance
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
students’ performance as evidenced in 12/3 = 4
5% the teacher’s class record with the 4 4 4 x 5% =
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

MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES
Conducted periodic PTA
meeting/conferences
Community
Involvement Conducted home visitation/met
EDUCATION (5%) parents of students needing
GOVERNANCE academic monitoring/follow-up
within the rating period
Undertake/initiated
projects/events/activities with
external funding/sponsorship
within
Participate in Education
Trainings and
Workshop/Seminars
WEIGHT Performance Indicators ACTUAL RESULTS
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
1% 4 4 4 x 1% =
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
4 – 80% accomplishments with partial
success in implementation of 0.21
12/3 = 4
interventions
3% 4 4 4 x 3% =
3 – 70% accomplishment of visits with
.12
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
partial completion 15/3 = 5
1% 3 – 70% project accomplishment with no 5 5 5 x 1% =
completion report .05
2 – 60% project initiative only with no
completion report
1 – No project/event/activity/ initiated
*Certificates showed participation and 9/3 = 3 x
3% 3 3 3
educational trainings/seminars 3% = .09
 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