SCHOOLS DIVISION OF NAVOTAS CITY

SAN ROQUE NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW FORM (IPCRF) for Teacher I-III
Name of Employee: JOSEPH G. BANTUG Name of Rater: MERLE M. MANALO
Position: SHS - Teacher II Position: Head Teacher III
Bureau/Center/Service/Division: DepEd-NCR-Navotas City Date of Review: October 2018
Rating Period: June to October 2018
TO BE FILLED OUT DURING PLANNING

Performance Indicators
Weight
MFOs KRAs Objectives Timeline Very
per KRA QET Outstanding (5) Satisfactory (3) Unsatisfactory (2) Poor (1)
Satisfactory (4)

Basic 1. Content 1. Applied Quality Showed knowledge of Showed knowledge of Showed knowledge of Showed knowledge of No acceptable
Education Knowledge and knowledge of content and its content and its content and its content and its evidence was
Services Predagogy content within and integration within and integration within and integration within and integration within and shown
(22.5%) across curriculum across subject areas as across subject areas as across subject areas as across subject areas as
teaching areas. shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with
a rating of 7 a rating of 6 a rating of 5 a rating of 4

Jun - Oct 7.5%

Efficiency Submitted at least 4 Submitted 3 lessons Submitted 2 lessons Submitted any 1 of No acceptable
lessons using MOV 1 using MOV 1 and using MOV 1 and other given MOV evidence was
and supported by any supported by any 1 of supported by any 1 of shown
1 of other given MOV other given MOV other given MOV

Timeliness
Basic 2. Used a range of Quality Facilitated using Facilitated using Facilitated using Facilitated using No acceptable
Education teaching strategies different teaching different teaching different teaching different teaching evidence was
Services that enhance strategies that strategies that strategies that strategies that shown
learner promote reading, promote reading, promote reading, promote reading,
achievement in writing and/or writing and/or writing and/or writing and/or
literacy and numeracy skills as numeracy skills as numeracy skills as numeracy skills as
numeracy skills. shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with
a rating of 7 a rating of 6 a rating of 5 a rating of 4

Jun - Oct 7.5% Efficiency Submitted at least 4 Submitted 3 learner - Submitted 2 learner - Submitted 1 learner - No acceptable
learner - centered centered lessons as centered lessons as centered lessons as evidence was
lessons as evidently evidently shown in evidently shown in evidently shown in any shown
shown in MOV 1 and MOV 1 and supported MOV 1 and supported of the given MOV
supported by any 1 of by any 1 of other MOV by any 1 of other MOV
other MOV given given given

Timeliness

Performance Indicators
Weight
MFOs KRAs Objectives Timeline Very
per KRA QET Outstanding (5) Satisfactory (3) Unsatisfactory (2) Poor (1)
Satisfactory (4)

Basic 3. Applied a range Quality Used different Used different Used different Used different No acceptable
Education of teaching teaching strategies teaching strategies teaching strategies teaching strategies evidence was
Services strategies to that develop critical that develop critical that develop critical that develop critical shown
develop critical and and creative thinking and creative thinking and creative thinking and creative thinking
creative thinking, as and/or other HOTS as and/or other HOTS as and/or other HOTS as and/or other HOTS as
well as other higher shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with
- order thingking a rating of 7 a rating of 6 a rating of 5 a rating of 4
skills.

Jun - Oct 7.5%

Efficiency Submitted at least 4 Submitted 3 lessons as Submitted 2 lessons as Submitted 1 lessons as No acceptable
lessons as evidenced evidenced by MOV 1 evidenced by MOV 1 evidenced by any 1 of evidence was
by MOV 1 and and supported by any and supported by any the given MOV shown
supported by any 1 of 1 of other given MOV 1 of other given MOV
other given MOV
 Timeliness
Basic 2. Learning 4. Managed Quality Used classroom Used classroom Used classroom Used classroom No acceptable
Education Environment classroom structure management management management management evidence was
Services and Diversity of to engage learners, strategies that engage strategies that engage strategies that engage strategies that engage shown
Learners individually or in learners in learners in learners in learners in
(22.5%) groups, in activities/tasks as activities/tasks as activities/tasks as activities/tasks as
meaningful shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with
exploration, a rating of 7 a rating of 6 a rating of 5 a rating of 4
discovery and
hands-on activities
within a range of Jun - Oct 7.5%
physical learning Efficiency Submitted at least 4 Submitted 3 lessons Submitted 2 lessons Submitted 1 lessons No acceptable
environments. lessons supported by supported by MOV 1 supported by MOV 1 supported by any of evidence was
MOV 1 and any 1 of and any 1 of the other and any 1 of the other the other acceptable shown
the other acceptable acceptable MOV acceptable MOV MOV
MOV

Timeliness
Basic 5. Managed learner Quality Applied teacher Applied teacher Applied teacher Applied teacher No acceptable
Education behavior management management management management evidence was
Services constructively by strategies of learner strategies of learner strategies of learner strategies of learner shown
applying positive behavior that behavior that behavior that behavior that
and non-violent promotet positive and promotet positive and promotet positive and promotet positive and
discipline to ensure non-violent discipline non-violent discipline non-violent discipline non-violent discipline
learning-focused as shown in MOV as shown in MOV as shown in MOV as shown in MOV
environments. submitted with a rating submitted with a rating submitted with a rating submitted with a rating
of 7 of 6 of 5 of 4
Jun - Oct 7.5%

Efficiency Submitted at least 4 of Submitted at least 4 of Submitted at least 4 of Submitted any 1 of the No acceptable
the given strategies as the given strategies as the given strategies as given strategies as evidence was
observed in at least 4 observed in at least 3 observed in at least 2 observed in only 1 shown
lessons lessons lessons lesson

Timeliness

Performance Indicators
Weight
MFOs KRAs Objectives Timeline Very
per KRA QET Outstanding (5) Satisfactory (3) Unsatisfactory (2) Poor (1)
Satisfactory (4)
Basic 6. Used Quality Applied differentiated Applied differentiated Applied differentiated Applied differentiated No acceptable
Education differentiated, teaching strategies to teaching strategies to teaching strategies to teaching strategies to evidence was
Services developmentally address learner address learner address learner address learner shown
appropriate diversity as shown in diversity as shown in diversity as shown in diversity as shown in
learning MOV 1 with a rating of MOV 1 with a rating of MOV 1 with a rating of MOV 1 with a rating of
experiences to 7 6 5 4
address learners'
gender, needs,
strengths, interests
and experiences.
Efficiency Submitted at least 4 Submitted 3 Submitted 2 Submitted any 1 No acceptable
Jun - Oct 7.5% differentiated teaching differentiated teaching differentiated teaching differentiated teaching evidence was
strategies in at least 2 strategies in at least 2 strategies in at least 2 strategy in only 1 shown
lessons as evidenced lessons as evidenced lessons as evidenced lesson as evidently
by MOV 1 and by MOV 1 and by MOV 1 and shown any 1 of the
supported by any 1 of supported by any 1 of supported by any 1 of other acceptable MOV
the other acceptable the other acceptable the other acceptable
MOV MOV MOV

Timeliness
Basic 3. Curriculum 7. Planned, Quality Planned and Planned and Planned and Planned and No acceptable
Education and Planning managed, and implemented implemented implemented implemented evidence was
Services (22.5%) implemented developmentally developmentally developmentally developmentally shown
developmentally sequenced teaching sequenced teaching sequenced teaching sequenced teaching
sequenced teaching and learning process and learning process and learning process and learning process
and learning as shown in MOV 1 as shown in MOV 1 as shown in MOV 1 as shown in MOV 1
processes to meet with a rating of 7 with a rating of 6 with a rating of 5 with a rating of 4
curriculum
requirements and
varied teaching
contexts.

Jun - Oct 7.5%

 requirements and
varied teaching
contexts.
Efficiency Submitted at least 4 Submitted 3 Submitted 2 Submitted 1 No acceptable
developmentally developmentally developmentally developmentally evidence was
Jun - Oct 7.5% sequenced teaching sequenced teaching sequenced teaching sequenced teaching shown
and learning process and learning process and learning process and learning process
as evidently shown in as evidently shown in as evidently shown in as evidently shown in
MOV 1 and supported MOV 1 and supported MOV 1 and supported any 1 of the given
by any 1 of the other by any 1 of the other by any 1 of the other MOV
given MOV given MOV given MOV

Timeliness

Performance Indicators
Weight
MFOs KRAs Objectives Timeline Very
per KRA QET Outstanding (5) Satisfactory (3) Unsatisfactory (2) Poor (1)
Satisfactory (4)

Basic 8. Participated in Quality Consistently Frequently Occasionally Rarely participated in No acceptable

Education collegial discussions participated in participated in participated in LACs/FGDs/ meetings evidence was
Services that use teacher LACs/FGDs/ meetings LACs/FGDs/ meetings LACs/FGDs/ meetings to discuss shown
and learner to discuss to discuss to discuss teacher/learner
feedback to enrich teacher/learner teacher/learner teacher/learner feedback to enrich
teaching practice. feedback to enrich feedback to enrich feedback to enrich instruction as shown in
instruction as shown in instruction as shown in instruction as shown in the MOV submitted
the MOV submitted the MOV submitted the MOV submitted

Jun - Oct 7.5%

 Jun - Oct 7.5%
Efficiency Participated in at least Participated in 3 Participated in 2 Participated in at 1 No acceptable
4 LACs/FGDs meetings LACs/FGDs meetings LACs/FGDs meetings LAC/FGD meeting as evidence was
as evidently shown in as evidently shown in as evidently shown in evidently shown in any shown
any 1 of the given any 1 of the given any 1 of the given 1 of the given MOV
MOV MOV MOV

Timeliness
Basic 9. Selected, Quality Developed and used Developed and used Developed and used Developed and used No acceptable
Education developed, varied teaching and varied teaching and varied teaching and varied teaching and evidence was
Services organized and used learning resources, learning resources, learning resources, learning resources, shown
appropriate including ICT, to including ICT, to including ICT, to including ICT, to
teaching and address learning goals address learning goals address learning goals address learning goals
learning resources, as shown in MOV 1 as shown in MOV 1 as shown in MOV 1 as shown in MOV 1
including ICT, to with a rating of 7 with a rating of 7 with a rating of 7 with a rating of 7
address learning
goals.

Efficiency Submitted at least 4 Submitted 3 varied Submitted 2 varied Submitted any No acceptable
Jun - Oct 7.5% varied teaching and teaching and learning teaching and learning teaching and learning evidence was
learning resources, resources, including resources, including resource, including ICT, shown
including ICT, as ICT, as evidently shown ICT, as evidently shown as evidently shown in
evidently shown in in MOV 1 and in MOV 1 and any of the acceptable
MOV 1 and supported supported by any 1 of supported by any 1 of MOV
by any 1 of the the acceptable MOV the acceptable MOV
acceptable MOV

Timeliness
 Performance Indicators
Weight
MFOs KRAs Objectives Timeline Very
per KRA QET Outstanding (5) Satisfactory (3) Unsatisfactory (2) Poor (1)
Satisfactory (4)

Basic 4. Assessment 10. Designed, Quality Designed, selected, Designed, selected, Designed, selected, Designed, selected, No acceptable
Education and Reporting selected, organized organized and used organized and used organized and used organized and used evidence was
Services (22.5%) and used diagnostic, formative diagnostic, formative diagnostic, formative diagnostic, formative shown
diagnostic, and summative and summative and summative and summative
formative and assessment strategies assessment strategies assessment strategies assessment strategies
summative consistent with consistent with consistent with consistent with
assessment curriculum curriculum curriculum curriculum
strategies requirements as requirements as requirements as requirements as
consistent with shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with shown in MOV 1 with
curriculum a rating of 7 a rating of 6 a rating of 5 a rating of 4
requirements.

Jun - Oct 7.5%

Efficiency Submitted at least 4 Submitted 3 varied Submitted 2 varied Submitted 1 No acceptable

varied assessment assessment tools as assessment tools as assessment tool as evidence was
tools as evidently evidently shown in any evidently shown in any evidently shown in any shown
shown in any 1 of the 1 of the acceptable 1 of the acceptable of the acceptable MOV
acceptable MOV MOV MOV

Timeliness
Basic 11. Monitored and Quality Consistently Frequently monitored Occasionally Rarely monitored and No acceptable
Education evaluated learner monitored and and evaluated learner monitored and evaluated learner evidence was
Services progress and evaluated learner progress and evaluated learner progress and shown
achievement using progress and achievement using progress and achievement using
learner attainment achievement using learner attainment achievement using learner attainment
data. learner attainment data as shown in the learner attainment data as shown in the
data as shown in the MOV submitted data as shown in the MOV submitted
MOV submitted MOV submitted

Jun - Oct 7.5%

 Jun - Oct 7.5%
Efficiency Submitted a Submitted a Submitted a Submitted 1 No acceptable
combination of at least combination of 3 of combination of 2 of acceptable MOV evidence was
4 of the acceptable the acceptable MOV the acceptable MOV shown
MOV

Timeliness Submitted MOV were Submitted MOV were Submitted MOV were Submitted MOV was No acceptable
distributed across 4 distributed across 3 distributed across 2 completed in only 1 evidence was
quarters quarters quarters quarter shown

Performance Indicators
Weight
MFOs KRAs Objectives Timeline Very
per KRA QET Outstanding (5) Satisfactory (3) Unsatisfactory (2) Poor (1)
Satisfactory (4)

Basic 12. Communicated Quality Consistently showed Frequently showed Occasionally showed Rarely showed promp No acceptable
Education promptly and promp and clear promp and clear promp and clear and clear evidence was
Services clearly the learners' communication of the communication of the communication of the communication of the shown
needs, progress and learners' needs, learners' needs, learners' needs, learners' needs,
achievement to key progress and progress and progress and progress and
stakeholders, achievement to key achievement to key achievement to key achievement to key
including stakeholders, including stakeholders, including stakeholders, including stakeholders, including
parents/guardians. parents/guardians as parents/guardians as parents/guardians as parents/guardians as
shown in the MOV shown in the MOV shown in the MOV shown in the MOV
submitted submitted submitted submitted

Jun - Oct 7.5%

 Jun - Oct 7.5%

Efficiency Submitted a Submitted a Submitted a Submitted any 1 of the No acceptable

combination of at least combination of 3 of combination of 2 of given MOV evidence was
4 of the acceptable the acceptable MOV the acceptable MOV shown
MOV

Timeliness Submitted MOV were Submitted MOV were Submitted MOV were Submitted MOV was No acceptable
distributed across 4 distributed across 3 distributed across 2 completed in only 1 evidence was
quarters quarters quarters quarter shown

Basic 5. Plus Factor 13. Performed Quality Consistently Frequently performed Occasionally Rarely performed No acceptable
Education (10%) various related performed various various related performed various various related evidence was
Services works/activities related works/activities that related works/activities that shown
that contribute to works/activities that contribute to the works/activities that contribute to the
the teaching- contribute to the teaching-learning contribute to the teaching-learning
learning process. teaching-learning process as shown in teaching-learning process as shown in
process as shown in the MOV submitted process as shown in the MOV submitted
the MOV submitted the MOV submitted

Jun - Oct 10.0%

Efficiency Submitted at least 4 Submitted 3 different Submitted 2 different Submitted any 1 of the No acceptable
different kinds of kinds of acceptable kinds of acceptable acceptable MOV evidence was
acceptable MOV MOV MOV shown

Timeliness

JOSEPH G. BANTUG MERLE M. MANALO ZENAIDA SD. SINGSON, Ed. D.

Ratee Rater Approving Authority
SHS - Teacher II MT/Head Teacher PSDS / OIC-Principal
Teacher I-III
MERLE M. MANALO
Head Teacher III
October 2018

TO BE FILLED OUT DURING EVALUATION

Rating

Actual Results Score

Q E T Ave

3 3 3 0.23
 3 3 3 0.23

Rating

Actual Results Score

Q E T Ave

3 3 3 0.23
 3 3 3 0.23

3 3 3 0.23

Rating

Actual Results Score

Q E T Ave
4 4 4 0.30

4 4 4 0.30
 4 4 4 0.30

Rating

Actual Results Score

Q E T Ave

3 3 3 0.23
3 3 3 0.23

4 4 4 0.30
 Rating

Actual Results Score

Q E T Ave

3 3 3 0.23

3 3 3 0.23
 3 3 3 0.23

Rating

Actual Results Score

Q E T Ave

3 3 3 3 0.23
 3 3 3 3 0.23

3 3 3 0.30

OVERALL RATING FOR

ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Satisfactory 3.23
 SAN ROQUE NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Gov. A. Pascual cor. A. Leongson Sts., San Roque, Navotas City

Name of Employee: .EMMYLYN P. SEMIL Name of Rater: AILEEN L. FRANCISCO

Position: Teacher II Position: Head Teacher III
Rating Period: June 2018-October 2018 Date of Review: October 2018

Summary Sheet for the computation of Portfolio Rating

Weight Weight per Numerical Ratings

KRAs Objectives Score
per KRA Objective Q E T Ave
Objective 1 7.5% 3 3 3.00 0.23
KRA 1 22.5% Objective 2 7.5% 3 3 3.00 0.23
Objective 3 7.5% 3 3 3.00 0.23
Objective 4 7.5% 4 4 4.00 0.30
KRA 2 22.5% Objective 5 7.5% 3 3 3.00 0.23
Objective 6 7.5% 4 4 4.00 0.30
Objective 7 7.5% 4 4 4.00 0.30
KRA 3 22.5% Objective 8 7.5% 3 3 3.00 0.23
Objective 9 7.5% 4 4 4.00 0.30
Objective 10 7.5% 3 3 3.00 0.23
KRA 4 22.5% Objective 11 7.5% 3 3 3 3.00 0.23
Objective 12 7.5% 3 3 3 3.00 0.23
Plus 10% Objective 13 10% 3 3 3.00 0.30
Factor
Final Rating 3.30
Adjectival Rating Satisfactory

Adjectival Rating Equivalences

RANGE ADJECTIVAL RATING
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.49 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.49 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.49 Unsatisfactory
<= 1.49 Poor

JOSEPH G. BANTUG MERLE M. MANALO

Ratee Rater

Reviewed by:
PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE

ZENAIDA SD. SINGSON, Ed. D.

Principal
Chairman