INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW FORM

Name of Teacher: _____________________________________________

Name of Rater:
________________________________________________
Position:
_____________________________________________
Position:
________________________________________________
Review Period: _____________________________________________
Date of Review:
________________________________________________
Division:
_____________________________________________
To be filled in during Planning
MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

1. Instructional
Competence

2. Prepared lesson
plans/daily plan of
activities including
appropriate,
adequate and
updated
instructional
materials

TIMELINE

To be filled in during
Evaluation

WT/ KRA

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

35%

OUTSTANDING (5)
1. All lesson plans/ daily plans had the following:
a. Objectives
c. Procedure
e. Assignment
b. Subject Matter
d. Evaluation
2. Objectives follow SMART.
3. 95%-100% developed high order thinking skills.
4. Attained 95%-100% of the desired learning competencies based on the
Budget of Work.
VERY SATISFACTORY (4)
1. Had four of the five parts of lesson plan/daily plan.
2. Objectives were stated with 1behavioral indicator is missing.
3. 86%-94% developed higher order thinking skills
4. Attained 86%-94% of the desired learning competencies based on the
Budget of Work.
SATISFACTORY (3)
1. Had three of the five parts of lesson plan/daily plan.
2. Objectives were stated with 2-3 behavioral indicators are missing.
3. 75%-85% developed higher order thinking skills
4. Attained 75%-85% of the desired learning competencies based on the
Budget of Work.

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING

SCORE

To be filled in during Planning

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

WT/ KRA

To be filled in during
Evaluation
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

UNSATISFACTORY (2)
1. Had two of the five parts of lesson plan/daily plan.
2. Objectives were stated with 4 behavioral indicators are missing.
3. 51%-74% developed higher order thinking skills
4. Attained 75%-85% of the desired learning competencies based on the
Budget of Work.
POOR (1)
1. Had one of the five parts of lesson plan/daily plan.
2. Objectives were stated with 5 behavioral indicators are missing.
3. 50% and below developed higher order thinking skills
4. Attained 50% and below of the desired learning competencies based on
the Budget of Work.

3. Facilitated
teaching-learning
process

OUTSTANDING (5)
1. The teacher established challenging and measurable goal/s for student
learning that is/are aligned with PSLC (Philippine Secondary Learning
Competencies) or the K to 12 Content and Performance Standards
2. The goal/s reflected a range of learners needs.
3. Has provided individual activities for 95%-100% of the classes handled
for the rating period.
4. Teaching methods and strategies elicited 95%-100% interaction from
class.
5. Inductive/deductive method was 95%-100% used in teaching a lesson.
6. Cooperative learning strategies was 95%-100% effective when used.
7. ICT integration in the teaching-learning process is 16 times and above
evident per quarter.
VERY SATISFACTORY (4)
1. The teacher developed measurable goal/s for student learning that
is/are aligned with PSLC (Philippine Secondary Learning
Competencies) or the K to 12 Content and Performance Standards
2. The teacher explained the importance of the goal/s and their
appropriateness to learners.

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING

SCORE

To be filled in during Planning

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

WT/ KRA

To be filled in during
Evaluation
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

3. Has provided individual activities for 86%-94% of the classes handled

for the rating period.
4. Teaching methods and strategies elicited 86%-94% interaction from
class.
5. Inductive/deductive method was 86%-94% used in teaching a lesson.
6. Cooperative learning strategies was 86%-94% effective when used.
7. ICT integration in the teaching-learning process is 11-15 times evident
per quarter.
SATISFACTORY (3)
1. The teacher clearly communicated a focus for student learning that is
aligned with PSLC (Philippine Secondary Learning Competencies) or
the K to 12 Content and Performance Standards
2. The teacher mentioned the importance of the goal/s and their
appropriateness to learners.
3. Has provided individual activities for 75%-85%of the classes handled
for the rating period.
4. Teaching methods and strategies elicited 75%-85% interaction from
class.
5. Inductive/deductive method was 75%-85% used in teaching a lesson.
6. Cooperative learning strategies was 75%-85% effective when used.
7. ICT integration in the teaching-learning process is 6-10 times evident
per quarter.
UNSATISFACTORY (2)
1. The teacher did not have a clear focus for student learning.
2. The teacher did not mention the importance of the goal/s and their
appropriateness to learners.
3. Has provided individual activities for 51%-74% of the classes handled
for the rating period.
4. Teaching methods and strategies elicited 51%-74% interaction from
class.
5. Inductive/deductive method was 51%-74% used in teaching a lesson.
6. Cooperative learning strategies was 51%-74% effective when used.
7. ICT integration in the teaching-learning process is 1-5 times evident
per quarter.

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING

SCORE

To be filled in during Planning

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

WT/ KRA

To be filled in during
Evaluation
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

POOR (1)
1. The teacher did not have a clear focus for student learning.
2. The teacher did not mention the importance of the goal/s and their
appropriateness to learners.
3. Has provided individual activities for 50 and below of the classes
handled for the rating period.
4. Teaching methods and strategies elicited 50% and below interaction
from class.
5. Inductive/deductive method was 50% and below used in teaching a
lesson.
6. Cooperative learning strategies was 50% and below effective when
used.
7. ICT integration in the teaching-learning process is not evident.

4. Initiated discipline
of students
including
classroom rules,
guidelines and
individual/group
tasks within the
rating period
5. Monitored
attendance, safe,
positive, and
motivating
environment,
overall physical
atmosphere,
cleanliness of
classrooms
including proper
waste disposal
daily

OUTSTANDING (5)
1. Students were 95%-100% guided in the observation of classroom rules
and guidelines.
2. Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of classrooms and proper disposal
of waste were 95%-100% maintained.
3. Attendance checking was 95%-100% systematically carried out.
VERY SATISFACTORY (4)
1. Students were 86%-94% guided in the observation of classroom rules
and guidelines.
2. Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of classrooms and proper disposal
of waste were 86%-94% maintained.
3. Attendance checking was 86%-94% systematically carried out.
SATISFACTORY (3)
1. Students were 75%-85% guided in the observation of classroom rules
and guidelines.
2. Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of classrooms and proper disposal
of waste were 75%-85% maintained.
3. Attendance checking was 75%-85% systematically carried out.

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING

SCORE

To be filled in during Planning

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

WT/ KRA

To be filled in during
Evaluation
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

UNSATISFACTORY (2)
1. Students were 51%-74% guided in the observation of classroom rules
and guidelines.
2. Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of classrooms and proper disposal
of waste were 51%-74% maintained.
3. Attendance checking was 51%-74% systematically carried out.
POOR (1)
1. Students were 50% and below guided in the observation of classroom
rules and guidelines.
2. Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of classrooms and proper disposal
of waste were 50% and below maintained.
3. Attendance checking was 50% and below systematically carried out.
2. Students
Outcomes

1. Monitored,
evaluated, and
maintained
students progress
within the rating
period
2. Conducted
remediation/
enrichment
programs to
improve
performance
indicators
3. Attained the
required GSA for
grade level and
learning areas

35%

OUTSTANDING (5)
1. Evidences showed that the teacher purposely plans assessments and
varies assessment choices to match the different student needs,
abilities, and learning styles.
2. Class record reflected the bases of 100% of students ratings in all
classes /subject areas handled.
3. Students portfolio/outputs contained 100% of his accomplishment.
4. Table of Specifications was 100% prepared for tests that require it.
5. Table of Specifications was 100% congruence between content and
skills tested.
6. Test questions were 100% logically sequenced.
7. Pretest and post test were 100% administered in all classes/subject area
(supported by analysis report on subject area per class/grade level)
8. Remediation/ enrichment program was offered to 100% of students
who need it.
9. Teachers attained the ____% increment of the required MPS.

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING

SCORE

To be filled in during Planning

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

WT/ KRA

To be filled in during
Evaluation
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

VERY SATISFACTORY (4)

1. The teacher explained various uses and limitations of teh different
kinds of assessment/tests. Evidences showed that student needs and
avenues for growth were clearly identified.
2. Class record reflected the bases of 90%-99% of students ratings in all
classes /subject areas handled.
3. Students portfolio/outputs contained 90%-99% of his accomplishment.
4. Table of Specifications was 90%-99% prepared for tests that require it.
5. Table of Specifications was 90%-99% congruence between content and
skills tested.
6. Test questions were 90%-99% logically sequenced.
7. Pretest and post-test were 90%-99% administered in all classes/subject
area (supported by analysis report on subject area per class/grade level)
8. Remediation/ enrichment program was offered to 90%-99% of students
who need it.
9. Teachers attained the ____% increment of the required MPS.
SATISFACTORY (3)
1. There is evidence of more than one measure of student performance
but there is difficulty in analyzing data to inform instructional planning
and delivery.
2. Class record reflected the bases of 80%-89% of students ratings in all
classes /subject areas handled.
3. Students portfolio/outputs contained 80%-89% of his accomplishment.
4. Table of Specifications was 80%-89% prepared for tests that require it.
5. Table of Specifications was 80%-89% congruence between content and
skills tested.
6. Test questions were 80%-89% logically sequenced.
7. Pretest and post-test were 80%-89% administered in all classes/subject
area (supported by analysis report on subject area per class/grade level)
8. Remediation/ enrichment program was offered to 80%-89% of students
who need it.
9. Teachers attained the ____% increment of the required MPS.

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING

SCORE

To be filled in during Planning

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

WT/ KRA

To be filled in during
Evaluation
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

UNSATISFACTORY (2)
1. The teacher planned instructions without analyzing student learning
data.
2. Class record reflected the bases of 70%-79% of students ratings in all
classes /subject areas handled.
3. Students portfolio/outputs contained 70%-79%of his accomplishment.
4. Table of Specifications was 70%-79%prepared for tests that require it.
5. Table of Specifications was 70%-79%congruence between content and
skills tested.
6. Test questions were 70%-79%logically sequenced.
7. Pretest and post-test were 70%-79%administered in all classes/subject
area (supported by analysis report on subject area per class/grade level)
8. Remediation/ enrichment program was offered to 70%-79%of students
who need it.
9. Teachers attained the ____% increment of the required MPS.
POOR (1)
1. No evidence of student monitoring/evaluation of student progress.
2. Class record reflected the bases of 50% and below of students ratings
in all classes /subject areas handled.
3. Students portfolio/outputs contained 50% and below of his
accomplishment.
4. Table of Specifications was 50% and below prepared for tests that
require it.
5. Table of Specifications was 50% and below congruence between
content and skills tested.
6. Test questions were 50% and below logically sequenced.
7. Pretest and post-test were 50% and below administered in all
classes/subject area (supported by analysis report on subject area per
class/grade level)
8. Remediation/ enrichment program was offered to 50% and below of
students who need it.
9. Teachers attained the ____% increment of the required MPS.

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING

SCORE

To be filled in during Planning

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

3. School,
Home, and
Community
Involvement

1. Conducted periodic
PTA meetings/
conferences/
consultations
2. Visited/ Invited
parents/guardians
of students needing
academic/
behavioral
monitoring/ followup within the rating
period
3. Participated in the
following school/
community
programs/
activities: early/
regular enrolment,
Brigada Eskwela,
and other required
programs/ activities

TIMELINE

WT/ KRA

15%

To be filled in during
Evaluation
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

OUTSTANDING (5)
1. 95%-100% accomplishment with set agreement met.
2. 95%-100% accomplishment of set visits/ invitations for successful
interventions.
3. All regular and required school/ community activities were attended/
participated in.
VERY SATISFACTORY (4)
1. 86%-94% of planned meetings conducted producing set of agreements
and partial accomplishment of these.
2. 86%-94% accomplishment of visits/ invitations with partial success in
implementation of interventions.
3. 1 of any regular and required school/ community programs/ meetings/
activities failed to attend/ participate in.
SATISFACTORY (3)
1. 75%-85% of planned meetings conducted producing set of agreements
and partial accomplishment of these.
2. 75%-85% accomplishment of visits/ invitations with partial success in
implementation of interventions.
3. 2-3 of any regular and required school/ community programs/
meetings/ activities failed to attend/ participate in.
UNSATISFACTORY (2)
1. 51%-74% of planned meetings conducted producing set of agreements
and partial accomplishment of these.
2. 51%-74% accomplishment of visits/ invitations with partial success in
implementation of interventions.
3. 4 or more of any regular and required school/ community programs/
meetings/ activities failed to attend/ participate in.

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING

SCORE

To be filled in during Planning

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

WT/ KRA

To be filled in during
Evaluation
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

POOR (1)
1. 50% and below of planned meetings conducted producing set of
agreements and partial accomplishment of these.
2. 50% and below accomplishment of visits/ invitations with partial
success in implementation of interventions.
3. No evidence of attendance/ participation in any of the regular and
required school/ community programs/ meetings/ activities.
4. Teachers
Professional
and Social
Development

1. Initiated/
Participated in cocurricular/ school/
division
professional and
social activities/
programs/ meetings
within the rating
period
2. Demonstrated
regular attendance
and punctuality
based on teachers
official time and in
attending classes
3. Demonstrated
punctuality in
accomplishing
tasks

15%

OUTSTANDING (5)
1. All activities/ programs/ meetings were attended/ participated in.
2. 100% attendance and punctuality based on teachers official time and
attending classes.
3. All tasks were accomplished with accuracy before due date.
4. Showed exemplary behavior in dealing with learners, peers, and
superiors.
5. Maintained 100% appropriateness in appearance including wearing of
prescribed uniform.
VERY SATISFACTORY (4)
1. 1 of any activities/ programs/ meetings failed to attend/ participate in.
2. 86%-99% had attendance and punctuality based on teachers official
time and attending classes.
3. All tasks were accomplished with accuracy on time.
4. Showed appropriate behavior in dealing with learners, peers, and
superiors.
5. Maintained 86%-99% appropriateness in appearance including wearing
of prescribed uniform.

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING

SCORE

To be filled in during Planning

MFOs

KRAs

OBJECTIVES

TIMELINE

WT/ KRA

4. Showed
appropriate
behavior in dealing
with learners,
peers, and superiors
and maintained
appropriate
appearance
including wearing
of prescribed
uniform

To be filled in during
Evaluation
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

SATISFACTORY (3)
1. 2-3 of any activities/ programs/ meetings failed to attend/ participate in.
2. 75%-85% had attendance and punctuality based on teachers official
time and attending classes.
3. All tasks were accomplished with accuracy but failed to submit on
time.
4. Showed appropriate behavior in dealing with learners, peers, and
superiors with minor cases of inappropriateness.
5. Maintained 75%-85% appropriateness in appearance including wearing
of prescribed uniform.
UNSATISFACTORY (2)
1. 4 or more of any activities/ programs/ meetings failed to attend/
participate in.
2. 51%-74% had attendance and punctuality based on teachers official
time and attending classes.
3. Tasks were accomplished but without accuracy and/or failed to submit
on time.
4. Showed appropriate behavior in dealing with learners, peers, and
superiors with major cases of inappropriateness.
5. Maintained 51%-74% appropriateness in appearance including wearing
of prescribed uniform.
POOR (1)
1. No evidence of attendance/ participation in any of the activities/
programs/ meetings.
2. 50% and below had attendance and punctuality based on teachers
official time and attending classes.
3. Tasks were not accomplished and/or failed to submit.
4. Showed inappropriate behavior in dealing with learners, peers, and
superiors.
5. Maintained 50% and below appropriateness in appearance including
wearing of prescribed uniform.
100%

ACTUAL
RESULTS

RATING

SCORE