Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Region IX, Zamboanga Peninsula

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW FORM

NAME OF EMPLOYEE: JAMES P. CARUMBA NAME OF RATER: JEFFREY S. OLIVER

POSITION: TEACHER – II POSITION: HEAD TEACHER – II
REVIEW PERIOD : SECOND SEMESTER DATE OF REVIEW: MAY 29, 2020
BUREAU/CENTER/ SERVICE / DIVISION: PAGADIAN CITY
KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE WEIGHT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ( QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, ACTUAL RESULTS
Per KRA TIMELINESS)
Q E T Q E T Average
1.Teac 1.1 JUNE 2019 15% Outstanding (5) Outstanding (5) Outstanding 4 4 4 4
hing Prepared TO MARCH (5)
Learni daily lesson 2020 a. Prepared daily 95-100%of the
ng plans/ daily lesson prescribed Prepared and
Proces lesson logs plans/logs with indicators were submitted daily
s with five systematic achieved lesson plan/log a
complete parts. day before the
parts and b. Each part had dateline.
description. a full description.
c. Objective was
specific,
measurable,
attainable,
result-oriented
and time-bound.
d. Developed 3
out of 10 item
formative test of
higher order Very
thinking skills. Satisfactory (4) Very
e. Prepared Satisfactory (4)
lesson 85-94% of
plans/logs based prescribed Prepared and
on the indicators were submitted daily
curriculum achieved lesson plan/log
guide. a day before
 the dateline.
Very
Satisfactory (4)

a. Had four of
the five parts of
lesson plan/log.
b. Each part had
a full description.
c. Objective was
specific, Satisfactory (3)
measurable, Satisfactory
attainable, 75-84% of the (3)
result-oriented prescribed
and time-bound. indicators were Prepared and
d. Developed 2 achieved. submitted daily
out of 10 item lesson plan/log
formative test of a day after the
higher order dateline.
thinking skills.
e. Prepared
lesson plan/log
based on the
curriculum
guide.

Satisfactory (3)

a. Had three of
the five parts of Unsatisfactory
lesson plan/log. (2) Unsatisfactory
b. Each part had (2)
a full description. 70-74%of the
c. Objective was prescribed Prepared and
specific, indicators were submitted daily
measurable, achieved. lesson plan/log
attainable, 3 days after the
result-oriented dateline.
and time-bound.
d. Developed 1
out of 10 item
formative test of
higher order
thinking skills.
e. Prepared
lesson plan/log
was not based
on the
curriculum Poor (1) Poor (1)
guide.
69% and below Prepared and
Unsatisfactory of the prescribed submitted
(2) indicators were lesson plan/log
a. Had two of the achieved. 5 days after the
five parts of dateline.
lesson plan/log.
b. Each part had
a full description.
c. Objective was
specific,
measurable,
attainable,
result-oriented
and time-bound.
d. Developed 1
out of 10 item
formative tests
of higher
thinking skills.
e. Prepared
lesson plan/log
based on the
curriculum
guide.
f. Prepared no
instructional
material.
Poor (1)

a. Had two of the

five parts of
lesson plan/log.

b. Each part had

a full description.

c. Objective was
specific,
measurable,
attainable,
result-oriented
and time-bound.

d. Developed 1
out of 10 item
formative test of
higher order
thinking skills.

e. Prepared
lesson plan/ log
based on the
curriculum
guide.

f. Prepared no
instructional
material.
 TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION
MFO KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE WEIGHT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ( QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, ACTUAL RESULTS
Per KRA TIMELINESS)
Q E T Q E T Average
1.Teac 1.2 JUNE 2019 10% Outstanding (5) Outstanding (5) Outstanding 4 4 4 4
hing Implement TO MARCH . (5)
Learni ed daily 2020 Implemented 4 95-100%
ng classroom indicators of indicators of Report
Proces manageme classroom classroom cards/journals/a
s nt such as management management necdotal
attendance such as: were records with
, implemented. descriptive
cleanliness a. attendance rating on
and b. cleanliness students’
orderliness and orderliness behavior and
, proper c. proper waste daily
waste disposal and attendance
disposal, recycling of form on
and materials students’
student d. student attendance
discipline. discipline Very were submitted
Satisfactory(4) quarterly, a day
before the
Very 85-94% dateline.
Satisfactory(4) indicators of
classroom Very
Implemented 3 management Satisfactory(4)
out of 4 were
indicators of implemented Report
classroom cards/journals
management. anecdotal
records with
descriptive
rating on
students’
behavior and
Satisfactory (3) daily
attendance
75-84% form on
indicators of students’
Satisfactory (3) classroom attendance
 management were submitted
Implemented 2 were quarterly, on
out of 4 implemented. the dateline.
indicators of
classroom Satisfactory
management. (3)

Report
cards/journals/an
ecdotal records
with descriptive
rating on
students’
behavior and
daily attendance
form on students’
attendance were
submitted
quarterly, on the
deadline.

1.Teac 1.2 Unsatisfactory( Unsatisfactory( Unsatisfactory

hing Implement 2) 2) (2)
Learni ed daily
ng classroom Implemented 1 70-74% Report
Proces manageme out of 4 indicators of cards/journals/a
s nt such as indicators of classroom necdotal
attendance classroom management are records with
, management. implemented. descriptive
cleanliness rating on
and students’
orderliness behavior and
, proper daily
waste attendance
disposal, form on
and students’
student attendance are
discipline Poor (1) submitted
Poor (1) quarterly, 3
69% and below days after the
Implemented indicators of dateline.
none of the 4 classroom
indicators of management are Poor (1)
 classroom implemented. Report
management. cards/journals/a
necdotal
records with
descriptive
rating on
students’
behavior and
daily
attendance
form on
students’
attendance are
submitted
quarterly, 5
days after the
dateline.

TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION

MFO KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE WEIGHT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ( QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, ACTUAL RESULTS
Per KRA TIMELINESS)
Q E T Q E T Average
1.Teac 1.3 JUNE 2019 10% Outstanding (5) Outstanding (5) Outstanding
hing Facilitated TO MARCH (5) 4 4 4 4
Learni learning 2020 a. Employed 3 95-100% of the
ng using differentiated prescribed Always
Proces varied teaching indicators were employed
s teaching strategies as achieved with differentiated
strategies appropriate for complete strategies, used
using the learners. documentation. computer aided
technology b. Utilized instructions and
(powerpoin computer aided utilized
t instruction. appropriate
presentatio c. Utilized instructional
n)and appropriate and materials.
CAIMS adequate
with instructional
appropriat materials. Very
e and d. Evaluated Satisfactory(4)
adequate students’
instruction performance 85-94% of the
al based on higher prescribed Very
materials. order thinking indicators were Satisfactory
skills. achieved with (4)
complete
Very documentation. Employed
Satisfactory (4) differentiated
strategies, used
a. Employed 2 computer aided
differentiated instructions and
teaching utilized
strategies as appropriate
appropriate for instructional
the learners. materials very
b. Utilized often.
computer aided
instruction.
c. Utilized
appropriate and
adequate
instructional
 materials.
d. Evaluated
students’
performance
based on higher
order thinking
skills

1.Teac 1.3 Satisfactory (3) Satisfactory (3) Satisfactory

hing Facilitated (3)
Learni learning a. Employed 1 75-84% of the
ng using teaching prescribed Employed
Proces varied strategy as indicators were differentiated
s teaching appropriate for achieved with strategies, used
strategies the learners. complete computer aided
using b. Utilized documentation. instructions and
technology computer aided utilized
(powerpoin instruction. appropriate
t c. Utilized instructional
presentatio appropriate and materials
n)and adequate Unsatisfactory( sometimes.
CAIMS instructional 2)
with materials. Unsatisfactory
appropriat d. Evaluated 70-74% of the (2)
e and students’ prescribed
adequate performance indicators were Rarely
instruction based on higher achieved with employed
al order thinking complete differentiated
materials. skills. documentation. strategies, used
computer aided
Unsatisfactory instructions and
(2) utilized
appropriate
a. Employed 1 instructional
teaching Poor(1) materials.
strategy as
appropriate for 69% of the
the learners. prescribed
b. Utilized indicators were Poor(1)
computer aided achieved with
instruction. complete Never
c. Utilized documentation. employed
appropriate and differentiated
adequate strategies, used
instructional computer aided
materials. instructions and
d. Evaluated utilized
students’ appropriate
performance instructional
based on higher materials.
order thinking
skills.

Poor (1)

a. Employed 1
teaching
strategy as
appropriate for
the learners.
b. Never used
computer aided
instruction.
c. Never utilized
appropriate and
adequate
instructional
materials.
d. Never
evaluated
students’
performance
based on higher
order thinking
skills.
 TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION
MFO KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE WEIGHT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ( QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, ACTUAL RESULTS
Per KRA TIMELINESS)
Q E T Q E T Average
2. 2.1.Monitor JUNE 2019 5% Outstanding (5) Outstanding Outstanding (5)
Studen ed and TO MARCH (5) 4 4 4 4
t evaluated 2020 Monitored and Submitted
Outco students’ evaluated 95- 100% of the required
mes academic students’ students documents 5
progress academic achieved at days before
using progress using least 75% MPS dateline.
summative summative,
, quarterly quarterly
assessmen examination
ts, through
including
verbal and  Table of
non-verbal Specificat
outputs ion
through  Construct
rubrics ion of test
questions
were
based on
Bloom’s
Taxonom
y
 Higher
Order
Thinking
Skills
Monitored and
evaluated verbal Very Very
and non-verbal Satisfactory Satisfactory (4)
outputs through (4)
rubrics… Submitted
 Content 85-94% of the required
 Participat students documents 5
ion achieved at days before
 Creativity least 75% MPS dateline
 Demonstr Satisfactory (3)
ation of
Knowled
ge / Skills
/ Attitude
Satisfactory (3)
Very Satisfactory
Satisfactory (4) (3) Submitted
required
Demonstrated 6 75-84% of the documents on
prescribed students the dateline.
indicators achieved at
least 75% MPs Unsatisfactory
(2)
Unsatisfactory
(2) Submitted
required
70-74% of the documents 3
Satisfactory (3) students days after the
achieved at dateline.
Demonstrated 4- least 75% MPS.
5 prescribed Poor (1)
indicators Poor (1)
Submitted
69% and below required
Unsatisfactory of the students document 5
(2) achieved at days after the
least 75% MPS. dateline.
Demonstrated 2-
3 prescribed
indicators

Poor (1)
 Demonstrated 1
prescribed
indicator only

2. 2.2Maintain JUNE 2019 10% Outstanding (5) Outstanding Outstanding (5)

Studen ed updated TO MARCH (5) 5 5 5 5
t student Updated and Submitted the
2020
Outco records submitted school 95-100% of the required
documents a day
mes such as records school records
before the
SF1, SF2, were updated dateline.
Form 10,  SF1, SF2
Form 9, monthly
anecdotal  Form 10,
records, Form 9,
nutritional anecdotal
status, E- records,
class E-class
record, LIS record,
and etc. LIS
quarterly Very Very
 Nutritiona Satisfactory Satisfactory (4)
l status at (4)
BOSY Submitted the
 and 85-94% of the required
EOSY school records documents a
were updated day before the
Very dateline.
Satisfactory (4)

6 school records Satisfactory (3)

were updated Satisfactory
and submitted (3) Submitted the
required
documents on the
75-84% of the dateline.
school records
Satisfactory (3) were updated Unsatisfactory
(3)
4 school records
were updated Unsatisfactory Submitted the
and submitted (3) required
documents a
70-74% of the day
Unsatisfactory school records after the
(2) were updated dateline.
2 school Poor(1)
records were Poor (1)
updated and Submitted the
submitted 69% of the required
school records Documents 2
were updated days after the
dateline.
Poor (1)

1 school
records were
updated and
submitted
 TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION
MFO KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE WEIGHT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ( QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, ACTUAL RESULTS
Per KRA TIMELINESS)
Q E T Q E T Average
2. 2.3 JUNE 2019 10% Outstanding (5) Outstanding
Studen Supervised TO MARCH (5) 4 4 4 4
t curricular 2020 Supervised
Outco curricular and
and co- Won first to
mes co-curricular
curricular
projects and third in the
projects and
activities in the regional/nation
activities national/ al
such as GAD regional level level/division
Culmination, level
Brigada Very
Eskwela, Satisfactory (4)
Nutrition Very
Month, Supervised Satisfactory(
Gulayan sa curricular and 4)
Paaralan, co-curricular
BSP,, projects and
activities in the Won first to
Technolympi
division/ school third in the
cs
level division/
-coach
school level
(cookery)firs
Satisfactory (3)
t place
-Regional
Supervised Satisfactory
Festival of curricular and
talents(RFOT (3)
co-curricular
) projects and
Intramurals- Participated in
activities in the
coach the
school level
(Swimming) division/school
Unsatisfactory level
(2)

Supervised Unsatisfactor
curricular and y(2)
co-curricular
projects and Participated in
activities in the the district
school level
level
Poor (1)

No participation
Poor (1)

Never
participated in
the school
level
 TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION
MFO KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE WEIGHT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ( QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, ACTUAL RESULTS
Per KRA TIMELINESS)
Q E T Q E T Average
3. 3.1 JUNE 2019 10% Outstanding (5) Outstanding (5) Outstanding (5)
Comm Maintained TO MARCH Participated 5 95%-100% Followed and 4 4 4 4
unity harmonious 2020 activities that active participated 5
Involv relationship maintains participation with scheduled
ement through harmonious complete activities
active relationships documentation
participatio among teachers,
n in: parents and Very
Teachers’ stakeholders Very Satisfactory(4)
Day, Satisfactory(4) Followed and
Faculty Very 85%-94% active participated 4
Meeting, Satisfactory (4) participation with scheduled
Team Participated 4 complete activities
Building, activities that documentation
Parents/ maintains
Family Day, harmonious
Araw/Anniv relationships Satisfactory (3) Satisfactory (3)
ersary among teachers, 75%-84% active Followed and
Celebration parents and participation with participated 3
s,Clean-up stakeholders complete scheduled
Drive,initiat documentation activities
ed by LGU Satisfactory (3)
and etc. Participated 3
Drug activities Unsatisfactory
symposium that maintains (2) Unsatisfactory
harmonious 70%-74% active (2)
and sex
relationships participation with Followed and
Education among teachers, complete participated 2
parents and documentation scheduled
stakeholders activities

Unsatisfactory Poor (1)

(2)
Participated 2 69% active Poor (1)
activities participation with
That maintains complete Followed and
harmonious documentation participated 1
relationships scheduled
among teachers, activities
parents and
stakeholders

Poor (1)

Participated 2
activities
That maintains
harmonious
relationships
among teachers,
parents and
stakeholders
 TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION
MFO KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE WEIGHT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ( QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, ACTUAL RESULTS
Per KRA TIMELINESS)
Q E T Q E T Average
3. 3.2 JUNE 2019 5% Outstanding (5) Outstanding (5) Outstanding (5)
Comm Conducted TO MARCH Conducted 4 95%-100% Conducted HPTA 4 4 4 4
unity Home 2020 HPTA meetings parents attended meeting one
Involv visitation within the rating the homeroom week after the
ement and period. meeting grading period.
Homeroom Conducted 8
PTA home visitations. .
meetings Very
every Very Very Satisfactory(4)
quarter. Satisfactory (4) Satisfactory(4) Conducted HPTA
Conducted 3 85%-94% meeting two
HPTA meetings parents attended weeks after the
within the rating the homeroom grading period.
period. meeting
Conducted 6 Satisfactory (3)
home visitations. Conducted HPTA
meeting three
Satisfactory (3) Satisfactory (3) weeks after the
Conducted 2 75%-74% grading period
HPTA meetings parents attended
within the rating the homeroom
period. meeting Unsatisfactory
Conducted 4 (2)
home visitations Conducted HPTA
meeting one
Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory month after the
(2) (2) schedule.
Conducted 2 70%-74%
HPTA meetings parents attended
within the rating the homeroom
period. meeting Poor (1)
Conducted 2 Not able to
home visitations conduct
 Poor (1) Poor (1)
Conducted 2 69% parents
HPTA meetings attended the
within the rating homeroom
period. meeting
Conducted 2 .
home visitations

TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION

MFO KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE WEIGHT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ( QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, ACTUAL RESULTS
Per KRA TIMELINESS)
Q E T Q E T Average
3. 3.3 JUNE 2019 5% Outstanding (5) Outstanding (5) Outstanding (5)
Comm Supported TO MARCH Supported 5 100% supported Supported 5 4 4 4 4
unity government government and the government government and
2020
Involve and non- non-government and non- non-government
ment government
government organization activities within
organization
organizatio activities. activities the given period.
n activities Very
such as Satisfactory(4)
4Ps, Very Very Supported 4
Disaster Satisfactory (4) Satisfactory(4) government and
Risk Supported 4 85%-94% non-government
Reduction government and supported the activities within
Program, non-government government and the given period.
National organization non-government Satisfactory (3)
organization
Greening activities. Supported 3
activities
Program, government and
Health and Satisfactory (3) non-government
Nutrition Satisfactory (3) 75%-84% activities within
Program, Supported 3 supported the the given period.
Drug government and government and Unsatisfactory
Awareness non-government non-government (2)
Campaign organization organization Supported 2
etc. activities. activities government and
non-government
activities within
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory (2) the given period.
(2) 70%-74%
supported the Poor (1)
Supported 2 government and No involvement of
government and non-government any organizational
non-government organization activities at the
organization activities given time.
activities

Poor (1)
Poor (1) 69% and below
supported the
Supported 1 government and
government and non-government
non-government organization
organization activities
 activities

TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION

MFO KRAs OBJECTIVES WEIGHT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ( QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, ACTUAL RESULTS
TIMELINE Per KRA TIMELINESS)
Q E T Q E T Average
4. 4.1 JUNE 2019 5% Outstanding (5) Outstanding (5) Outstanding (5)
Professi Classroom TO MARCH 4 4 4 4
onal managemen Initiated 2 100% of the Submitted
Growth 2020
t, lesson classroom classroom classroom
and management,
Develop preparation management, management,
lesson preparation
ment and other lesson and other related lesson
(10%) related task. preparation and task. preparation and
other related task. other related task.
Very
Satisfactory(4) Very
Very Satisfactory(4)
Satisfactory (4) 100% of the
classroom Submitted
Initiated a management, classroom
lesson preparation
classroom management,
and other related
management, task. lesson
lesson preparation and
preparation and other related task.
other related task.
Satisfactory (3)

Submitted
Satisfactory (3) classroom
management,
100% of the
Satisfactory (3) lesson
classroom
management, preparation and
Initiated lesson preparation other related task.
problem/classroo and other related
m management, task. Unsatisfactory
lesson (2)
preparation and
other related task. Unsatisfactory Submitted
(2) classroom
management,
50% of the
Unsatisfactory lesson
classroom
(2) management, preparation and
lesson preparation other related task.
Initiated and other related
problem/classroo task.
m management,
lesson
preparation and
 other related task.

Poor (1) Poor (1) Poor (1)

Only No action No action research

classroom/learnin research conducted
g/issues identified conducted

5
4.2 Outstanding (5) Outstanding (5) 5 5 5
Attended JUNE 2019 5% Outstanding
and TO MARCH Attended and (5) Attended seminars
implemente 2020 implemented at on time and
d seminar- least one (1) Implemented implemented
workshop national or one 100% of the seminar/workshop
related to (1) regional or seminar\/works a week after the
professiona one( 1) division or hop attended attendance
l growth perfect
and attendance in
developmen school-based
t in different seminars/worksh
levels such ops Very Satisfactory
as (4)
district/qual Very Very
ci, division Satisfactory (4) Satisfactory Was late once in
regional (4) the seminar and
and Attended and implemented it a
national. implemented at Implemented week after the
least one (1) 90% of the attendance
national or one seminar\/works
(1) regional or hop attended
one( 1) division or
missed one Satisfactory (3)
school-based
seminars Was late twice in
the seminar and
Satisfactory (3) implemented it 2
Satisfactory (3) weeks after the
Implemented attendance
 Attended and 80% of the
implemented at seminar\/works
least one ( 1) hop attended
division or
missed two
school-based
seminars

4. 4.2 Unsatisfactory(2 Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory ()

Profes Attended ) (2)
sional and Was late twice in
Growt implemente Missed two Implemented the seminar and
h and d seminar- school-based 75% of the implemented it 3
Develo workshop seminars/meeting seminar\/works weeks after the
pment related to s without valid hop attended attendance
(10%) professiona reasons
l growth Poor (1)
and
developmen Poor (1) Was late twice in
t in different Poor (1) the seminar and
levels such Implemented implemented it a
as Missed 3 school- 70% of the month after the
district/qual based seminar\/works attendance
ci, division seminars/meeting hop attended
regional s without valid
and reasons
national.
 TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION
MFO KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE WEIGHT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ( QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, ACTUAL RESULTS
Per KRA TIMELINESS)
Quality Efficiency Timeliness Q E T Average
 4. 4.3 Earned JUNE 2019 10% Outstanding (5) Outstanding Outstanding (5) 2 3 3 2.6
Profes units/degre TO MARCH (5)
sional e in 2020 Graduated Submitted proof of
Growt graduate or Masters Degree Submitted evidence one (1)
h and post with proof of 100% proof of month before the
Develo graduate evidence. evidence. last day of service.
pment studies
(10%) Very Satisfactory
Very Satisfactory (4)
(4) Very
Bachelor Submitted proof of
Satisfactory (4)
of Science Earned 30 units in evidence two weeks
graduate or post Submitted 100% before the last day
in graduate studies proof of evidence of service.
with approved one month before
Secondary permit to study with the last day of Satisfactory (3)
Education proof of evidence. service.
Submitted proof of
26 units Satisfactory (3) Satisfactory (3) evidence two weeks
before the last day
Earned 18 units in Submitted 80% of service.
MA.ED 9 graduate or post proof of evidence
Units graduate studies one month before Unsatisfactory ()
with approved the last day of
permit to study with service. Submitted proof of
proof of evidence. evidence on the last
Unsatisfactory day of service.
Unsatisfactory(2) (2)

Earned 9 units in Submitted 70% Poor (1)

graduate or post proof of evidence
graduate studies one month before No documents
with approved the last day of submitted at the end
permit to study with service of the last day of
proof of evidence. service.
Poor (1)
Poor (1)
0% document
No units earned in submitted at the
graduate and post end of the last
graduate day of service

*To get the score, the rating is multiplied Overall rating for accomplishments

by the weight assigned.

JEFFREY S. OLIVER JAMES P. CARUMBA
Rater Ratee