POSITION AND COMPETENCY PROFILE PCP No.

_________ Revision Code: 00

Department of Education
Postion Title Teacher I Salary Grade 11
Parenthetical Title
Office Unit Effectivity Date
Reports to Principal/ School Heads Page/s
Position Supervised
JOB SUMMARY

QUALIFICATION STANDARDS
A. CSC Prescribed Qualifications
Education Bachelor of Elementary/Secondary/Early Childhood Education or Bachelor's degree plus 18 professional unit in Education
Experience None required
Eligibility RA 1080
Trainings None required
B. Preferred Qualifications
Education BSE/BSEEd/College Graduate with education units (18-21), MA units 18 units
Experience
Eligibility PBET/LET Passers
Trainings In-Service training
 Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form

Name of Employee: Name of Rater:

Position: Position:
Review Period: Date of Review:
Bureau/Center/Service/Division:

TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION

RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.

MFO: 2 BASIC Teaching-Learning

Process
• Prepared lesson plans
and daily logs of
activities including
5 - Outstanding

EDUCATION appropriate adequate

and updated • All daily lesson plans had the following

SERVICES instructional materials objective, subject matter, procedures,

with in the rating period evaluation and assignment

• Each part had a full description of what

to do with an example

• Objective was specific, measurable,

attainable, result-oriented and time-
bound
• 130% and above developed high order
thinking skills
• Attained 130% and above of the desired
learning competencies
• 130% and above based on the budget of
work
4 - Very Satisfactory

• Had four of the five parts of lesson plan

• Each part of the partial description of
what to do with an example

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.

• Objective was stated with 1 behavioral

indicator is missing
• 115-129% developed high order thinking
skills
• Attained 115-129% of the desired
learning competencies
• 115-129% based on the approved
budget of work
3 - Satisfactory
• Had 3 of the five parts
• Each part had a partial description with
out example
• Objectives was stated with 3-4
behavioral indicator missing
• 100-114% develop high order thinking
skills
• Attained 100-114% of the desired
learning competencies
• 100-114% based on the approved
budget of work
2 - Unsatisfactory
• Had 2 of the five parts
• Each part had no description with out
example
• Objectives was stated with 1-2
behavioral indicator missing
• 51-99% develop high order thinking
skills
• Attained 51-99% of the desired learning
competencies
• 51-99% based on the approved budget
of work

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.

1 - Poor
• Had 1 of the five parts
• Each part had no description with out
example
• Objectives was stated without
behavioral indicator m
• 50% and below develop high order
thinking skills
• 50% and below attained the desired
learning competencies
• 50% and below based on the approved
budget of work
• Facilitated learning in 5 - Outstanding
the school through
functional lesson plans,
daily logs and
innovative teaching
strategies • The teacher established challenging and
measurable goal/s for student learning
that is aligned with the (DepEd standards
or Philippine Elementary Learning
Competencies (PELC) or the Philippine
Secondary Learning Competencies
(PSLC))curriculum
• The goal reflected a range of student
learner needs.

• Has provided individual activities for a

130% and above of the classes handled
for the rating period

• Teaching methods and strategies

elicited 130% and above interaction from
a class

• Inductive method/deductive method

was 130% and above used in teaching a
lesson
• Cooperative learning strategies was
130% and above effective when used

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.

• ICT integration is 130% and above

evident

• Results of student
observations/appraisal are 130% and
above used as basis for follow-up.
4 - Very Satisfactory

• The teacher developed a measurable

goal for student learning that is aligned
with the (DepEd standards or Philippine
Elementary Learning Competencies (PELC)
or the Philippine Secondary Learning
Competencies (PSLC))curriculum

• The teacher explained the importance

of the goal and the appropriateness to
students.

• Has provided individual activities for a

115-129% and above of the classes
handled for the rating period

• Teaching methods and strategies

elicited 115-129% interaction from a class

• Inductive method/deductive method

was 115-129% used in teaching a lesson

• Cooperative learning strategies was 115-

129% effective when used
• ICT integration is 115-129% evident

• Results of student
observations/appraisal are 115-129%
used as basis for follow-up.

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.

3 - Satisfactory

• The teacher clearly communicated a

focus for student learning that is aligned
with the (DepEd standards or Philippine
Elementary Learning Competencies (PELC)
or the Philippine Secondary Learning
Competencies (PSLC))curriculum

• Has provided individual activities for a

100-114% and above of the classes
handled for the rating period

• Teaching methods and strategies

elicited 100-114% interaction from a class

• Inductive method/deductive method

was 100-114% used in teaching a lesson
• Cooperative learning strategies was 100-
114% effective when used
• ICT integration is 100-114% evident

• Results of student
observations/appraisal are 100-114%
used as basis for follow-up.
2 - Unsatisfactory
• The teacher did not have a clear focus
for student learning

• Has provided individual activities for a

51-99% of the classes handled for the
rating period

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.

• Teaching methods and strategies

elicited 51-99% interaction from a class
• Inductive method/deductive method
was 51-99% used in teaching a lesson
• Cooperative learning strategies was 51-
99% effective when used
• ICT integration is 51-99% evident

• Results of student
observations/appraisal are 51-99% used
as basis for follow-up.
1 - Poor

• The teacher did not have a clear focus

for student learning or the objective is
too general to guide lesson planning or
the objective is inappropriate for students

• Has provided individual activities for a

50% and below of the classes handled for
the rating period

• Teaching methods and strategies

elicited 50% and below interaction from a
class

• Inductive method/deductive method

was not used in teaching a lesson

• Cooperative learning strategies was

never used
• ICT integration is not evident

• Results of student
observations/appraisal are not used as
basis for follow-up.

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.
• Initiated discipline of 5 - Outstanding
students including
classroom rules,
guidelines and
individual and group • Pupils were 130% and the above guided
task with in the rating in the observation of classroom rules and
period the guidelines as evidenced by descriptive
rating in the report card/journal
4 - Very Satisfactory

• Pupils were 115-129% guided in the

observation of classroom rules and the
guidelines as evidenced by descriptive
rating in the report card/journal
3 - Satisfactory

• Pupils were 100-114% guided in the

observation of classroom rules and the
guidelines as evidenced by descriptive
rating in the report card/journal
2 - Unsatisfactory

• Pupils were 51-99% guided in the

observation of classroom rules and the
guidelines as evidenced by descriptive
rating in the report card/journal
1 - Poor

• Pupils were not guided in the

observation of classroom rules and the
guidelines as evidenced by descriptive
rating in the report card/journal

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.
• Monitored 5 - Outstanding
attendance, diversity
and appreciation, safe,
positive and motivating
environment, overall • Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of
physical atmosphere, floors, toilets and proper waste disposal
cleanliness and were 130% and above maintained
orderliness of • Attendance checking was 130% and
classrooms including above systematically carried out
proper waste disposal
daily 4 - Very Satisfactory
• Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of
floors, toilets and proper waste disposal
were 115-129% maintained
• Attendance checking was 115-129%
systematically carried out
3 - Satisfactory
• Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of
floors, toilets and proper waste disposal
were 100-114% maintained
• Attendance checking was 100-114%
systematically carried out
2 - Unsatisfactory
• Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of
floors, toilets and proper waste disposal
were 51-99% maintained
• Attendance checking was 51-99%
systematically carried out
1 - Poor

• Safety, orderliness and cleanliness of

floors, toilets and proper waste disposal
were 50% and below consistently
maintained
• Attendance checking was 50% and
below systematically carried out

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.
• Pupils/Student • Monitored and 5 - Outstanding
Outcomes evaluated and
maintained
pupils/students' • Evidence showed that the teacher
progress with in the purposely plans assessments and varies
rating period assessment choices to match the different
student needs, abilities, and learning
styles.

• Class record reflected the bases of 130%

and above of pupils' ratings in all
classess/subject areas handled
• Students' portfolio contained 130% and
above of his accomplishment

• Table of specifications is 130% and

above prepared for tests that require it

• Table of specifications showed 130%

and above congruence between content
and skills test
• Test questions were 130% and above
logiclly sequenced

• Pretest and Posttest were 130% and

above administered in all classes/subject
area (Supported by analysis report on
subject area per class/grade level)
4 - Very Satisfactory

• The teacher explained the various uses

and limitations of the different kinds of
assessments/test. Evidence showed that
student needs and avenues for growth
were clearly identified.

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.

• Class record reflected the bases of 115-

129% of pupils' ratings in all
classess/subject areas handled
• Students' portfolio contained 115-129%
of his accomplishment
• Table of specifications is 115-129%
prepared for tests that require it

• Table of specifications showed 115-

129% congruence between content and
skills test
• Test questions were 115-129% logiclly
sequenced

• Pretest and Posttest were 115-129%

administered in all classes/subject area
(Supported by analysis report on subject
area per class/grade level)
3 - Satisfactory

• The eveidence of more than one

measure of student performance but
there is difficulty in analyzing data to
inform instuctional planning and dilivery

• Class record reflected the bases of 100-

114% of pupils' ratings in all
classess/subject areas handled
• Students' portfolio contained 100-114%
of his accomplishment
• Table of specifications is 100-114%
prepared for tests that require it

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.

• Table of specifications showed 100-

114% congruence between content and
skills test
• Test questions were 100-114% logiclly
sequenced

• Pretest and Posttest were 100-114%

administered in all classes/subject area
(Supported by analysis report on subject
area per class/grade level)
2 - Unsatisfactory

• The teacher planned instructions

without analyzing student learning data

• Class record reflected the bases of 51-

99% of pupils' ratings in all
classess/subject areas handled
• Students' portfolio contained 51-99% of
his accomplishment
• Table of specifications is 51-
99%prepared for tests that require it

• Table of specifications showed 51-99%

congruence between content and skills
test
• Test questions were 51-99% logiclly
sequenced

• Pretest and Posttest were 51-99%

administered in all classes/subject area
(Supported by analysis report on subject
area per class/grade level)
1 - Poor
• No evidence of student monitoring or
evaluation of student progress

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.

• Class record reflected the bases of 50%

and below of pupils' ratings in all
classess/subject areas handled
• Students' portfolio contained 50% and
below of his accomplishment
• Table of specifications is not prepared
for tests that require it

• Table of specifications did not show

congruence between content and skills
test
• Test questions were not logiclly
sequenced
• Pretest and Posttest were never
administered
• Conducted 5 - Outstanding
Remediation/enrichmen
t programs to improve • Remediation/Enrichment program is
performance indicators offered to 130% and above who need it
4 - Very Satisfactory
• Remediation/Enrichment program is
offered to 115-129% who need it
3 - Satisfactory
• Remediation/Enrichment program is
offered to 100-114% who need it
2 - Unsatisfactory
• Remediation/Enrichment program is
offered to 51-99% who need it
1 - Poor
• Remediation/Enrichment program is
offered to 50% and below who need it

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.
• Attained the required 5 - Outstanding
GSA for grade level and
learning areas 130% and above MPS/GSA
4 - Very Satisfactory
115%-129% MPS/ GSA
3 - Satisfactory
100-114% MPS/GSA
2 - Unsatisfactory
51-99% MPS/GSA
1 - Poor
50% and below MPS/GSA

MFO: 1 • Community
Involvement
• Conducted periodic
PTA
meetings/conferences
5 - Outstanding
130% and above accomplishment with set
BASIC agreements met
4 - Very Satisfactory
EDUCATION 115-129% of planned meetings producing

POLICY
only set agreements and partial
accomplishments of these
3 - Satisfactory
SERVICES
100-114% of planned meetings conducted
producing set of agreements
2 - Unsatisfactory
51-99% of planned meetings conducted
with minimal results
1 - Poor
50% and below of the planned meetings
conducted with no result

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.
• Visited parents of
students needing 5 - Outstanding
academic 130% and above accomplishment of set
monitoring/follow-up visits successful interventions
with in the rating period
4 - Very Satisfactory
115-129% accomplishment of visits with
partial success in implementation of
interventions
3 - Satisfactory

100-114% accomplishment of visits with

suggested planned interventions
2 - Unsatisfactory
51-99% accomplishments of visits with
planned interventions
1 - Poor
50% and below accomplishments with no
interventions
• Undertaken/initiated 5 - Outstanding
projects/events/activiti
es with external 130% and above project accomplishment
funding/sponsorship with full documentation report on
within the target date completion
4 - Very Satisfactory
115-129% project accomplishment with
partial completion
3 - Satisfactory
100-114% project initiative only with no
completion report
2 - Unsatisfactory
51-99% project initiative only with no
completion report
1 - Poor
No project/event/activity initiated

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.

MFO: 2 BASIC • Professional

Growth and
Development
• Conducted
problem/classroom
based action research
5 - Outstanding

EDUCATION
3 action research conducted with full
documentation on completion of
interventions.
SERVICES 4 - Very Satisfactory
2 action research conducted with full
documentation on completion of
interventions.
3 - Satisfactory
1 action research conducted with full
documentation on completion of
interventions.
2 - Unsatisfactory
Identified classroom/learning problems
with research proposals
1 - Poor

Only classroom/learning/issues identified

• Initiated/Participated 5 - Outstanding
in co-curricular/school
activities with in the
rating period Initiated at least 2 co-curricular/ school
activities with documented results
4 - Very Satisfactory

Initiated and participated in co-curricular/

school activities with documented results
3 - Satisfactory

Participated in most co-curricular/ school

activities with documented results
2 - Unsatisfactory
Participation only with out document
results
1 - Poor
No participation in school Activities

#RSH#
 RATING
Weight PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality,
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE ACTUAL RESULTS SCORE*
per KRA Efficiency,Timelines)
Q E T Ave.
• Produced 5 - Outstanding
publications/ creative
work for school
paper/division Produced publication/creative work
publication with in the published in National Circulation/ DepEd
target date Post/ CSC Newsletters and similar
publications
4 - Very Satisfactory
Produced publication/creative work
published in regional publications
3 - Satisfactory
Produced publication/creative work
published in division publications
2 - Unsatisfactory
Produced publication/creative work
published in school papers
1 - Poor
Unpublished work produced
* Toget the score, the rating is multiplied by th weight assigned
0
OVERAL RATING FOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS 0

0 0
Ratee Rater Approving Officer

#RSH#
 COMPETENCIES

CORE BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCIES

improve performance. Examples may include doing something better, faster,
Self-Management at alower cost, more efficiently; or improving quality, costumer satisfaction,
morale, without setting any specific goal.
1 Sets personal goals and direction, needs and development. 4
Undertakes personal actions and behaviors that are clear and Teamwork
2
4 4 1
purposive and takes into account personal goals and values congruent
Willingly does his/her share of responsibilty. 4
to that of the organization.
2 Promotes collaboration and removes barriers to teamwork and goal
3
Displays emotional maturity and enthusiasm for and is challenged by
4 accomplishment across the organization 5 4.2
higher goals
Prioritize work tasks and schedules (through gantt charts, checklists, 3
4
etc.) to achieve goals.
4 Applies negotiation principles in arriving at win-win agreements.
4
5 Sets high quality, challenging, realistic goals for self and others 4 4 4
Drives consensus and team ownership of decisions.
5
Works constructively and collaboratively with others and across organizations
Professionalism and Ethics
to accomplish organizational goals and objectives.
4

Demonstrates the values and behavior enshrined in the Norms of Service Orientation
Conduct and Ethical Standards for public officials and employee (RA 4 1
1 6713). Can explain and articulate organizational directions, issues and problems. 4
2
Practices ethical and professional behavior and conduct taking into
2
account the impact of his/her actions and decisions.
4 4.2 Takes personal responsibilty for dealing with and/or correcting costumer 3 3.6
service issues and concerns
Maintains professional image: being trustworthy, regularity of 3 Initiates activities that promotes advocacy for men and women
3
attendance and punctuality, good grooming and communication.
4 4
empowerment.
4 Participates in updating of office vision, mission, mandates & strategies based
4 Makes personal sacrifices to meet the organization's needs. 4 on DepEd strategies and directions.
3
Acts with a sense pf urgency and responsibility to meet the 5
Develops and adopts service improvement programs through simplified
5 organization's needs, improves systems and help others improve their 5 procedures that will further enhance service delivery.
4
effectiveness.
Result Focus Innovation
1 Examines the root cause of problems and suggests effective solutions.
Achieves results with optimal use of time and resources most of the
1
time.
4 Fosters new ideas, processes, and suggests bettter ways to do things (cost 4
and/or operational efficiency).
2
Avoids rework, mistakes and wastage through effective work methods Demonstrates an ability to think "beyond the box". Continuously focuses on
2
by placing organizational needs before personal needs.
4 improving personal productivity to create higher value and results.
4
3
Delivers error-free outputs most of the time by conforming to standard
operating procedures correctly and consistently. Able to produce very Promotes a creative climate and inspires co-workers to develop original ideas
3
satisfactoy quality of work in terms of usefulness/acceptability and
3 3.8 or solutions.
4 3.8
completeness with no supervision required.

Expresses a desire to do better and may express frustration at waste 4

Translates creative thinking into tangible changes and solutions that improve the work unit and
4 or inefficiency. May focus on new or more precise ways of meeting 4 organization. 3
goals set.
5 Uses ingenious methods to accomplish responsibilties. Demonstrates resourcefulness and the
5 Makes specific changes in the system or in own work methods to 4 ability to succeed with minimal resources. 4
5 - Role Model; 4 - Consistently demonstrates; 3 - Most of the time demonstrates; 2 - Sometimes demonstrates; 1 - Rarely demonstrates
DEPED RPMS form - DEPED form -Teachers
 CORE SKILLS Computer/ICT Skills
Oral Communication Prepares basic compositions ( e.g., letters, reports, spreadsheets and graphic
1
presentations using Word Processing and Excel.
4

Identifies different computer parts, turns the computer on/off, and work on a
1 Follows instructions accurately. 4 4 2 given task with acceptable speed and accuracy and connects computer 4 3.8
peripherals ( e.g., printers, modems, multi-media projectors, etc.)

2 Expresses self clearly, fluently and articulately. 4 3 Prepares simple presentations using Powerpoint. 3
Utilizes technologies to : access information to enhance professional
3 Uses appropriate medium for the message. 4 4 productivity, assists in conducting research and communicate through local 4
and global professional networks.
Recommends appropriate and updated technology to enhance productivity
4 Adjust communication style to others. 4 5
and professional practice.
4
5 Guides discussions between and among peers to meet an objective. 4
Written Communication
Knows the different written business communication formats used in
1 the DepEd. 4
Writes routine correspondence/communications, narrative and
descriptive report based on ready available information data with 4 4
minimal spelling or grammatical error/s (e.g. Memos, minutes, etc.)
2 OVERALL COMPETENCY RATINGS
Secures information from required references (i.e., Directories,
3 schedules, notices, instructions) for specific purposes.
4 CORE BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCIES 3.93
Self-edits words, numbers, phonetic notation and content, if
4 necessary.
4 3.93
Demonstrates clarity, fluency, impact, conciseness, and effectiveness
5 in his/her written communications.
4
OVERALL RATING 3.93

5 - Role Model; 4 - Consistently demonstrates; 3 - Most of the time demonstrates; 2 - Sometimes demonstrates; 1 - Rarely demonstrates

Note: These ratings can be used for the developmental plans of the employee.
DEPED RPMS form - DEPED form - For Teachers
 PART III: SUMMARY OF RATINGS FOR DISCUSSION

Final Performance Results Rating

Accomplishments of KRAs and Objectives 3.93

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: LEA EVARDO-ROSAL Name of Superior: ELVIRA O. ALEJO

Signature: Signature:
Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2020

PART IV: DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Action Plan
Strengths Development Needs (Recommended Developmental Timeline Resources Needed
Intervention)

Professionalism Service Orientation June 2019 - April 2020 Deped Forums / Pages, Media,
and *Acquiant Deped Orders, issues, problems Magazines, Books
Ethics Address learners issues and provide Entertainment Shows, Debates
possible solutions
Teamwork *Attend and participate open forum/ June 2019 - April 2020 Trainings/Seminars
seminars/ trainings/ workshops not only
on specialized subjects but also on other
subject areas taught to deliver the lesson
that meets the learners needs.

LEA EVARDO-ROSAL ELVIRA O. ALEJO ARSENIA C. ZAMORAS

Ratee Rater Approving Officer