POSITION AND COMPETENCY PROFILEPCP No. _________ Revision Code: 00 Department of Education Postion Title Parenthetical Title Office Unit Reports to Position Supervised Teacher I Salary Grade Principal/ School Heads Effectivity Date Page/s 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 10 Revision Code: 00 10 Education Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form Name of Employee: Position: Review Period: Bureau/Center/Service/Division: LEONIEL L. RONSABLE Teacher I Name of Rater: Position: Date of Review: TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING MFOs MFO: 2 BASIC EDUCATION SERVICES KRAs OBJECTIVES Teaching-Learning • Prepared lesson Process plans and daily logs of activities including appropriate adequate and updated instructional materials with in the rating period TIMELINE Weight per KRA 30% PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) 5 - Outstanding • All daily lesson plans had the following objective, subject matter, procedures, 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 #RSH# MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) • Each part of the partial description of what to do with an example #RSH# MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality, Efficiency,Timelines) • 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 #RSH# Efficiency.MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality.Timelines) • 51-99% based on the approved budget of work #RSH# . MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality.Timelines) 1 . • 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 #RSH# .Outstanding • 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. Efficiency. daily logs and innovative teaching strategies 5 .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 the school through functional lesson plans. Efficiency.Timelines) • Inductive method/deductive method was 130% and above used in teaching a lesson • Cooperative learning strategies was 130% and above effective when used #RSH# .MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality. 4 . • 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 115129% effective when used • ICT integration is 115-129% evident • Results of student observations/appraisal are 115-129% used as basis for follow-up. Efficiency.Timelines) • ICT integration is 130% and above evident • Results of student observations/appraisal are 130% and above used as basis for follow-up.MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality.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. #RSH# . Efficiency. 2 .Timelines) 3 .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# .MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality.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 100114% effective when used • ICT integration is 100-114% evident • Results of student observations/appraisal are 100-114% used as basis for follow-up. MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality. 1 .Timelines) • 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 5199% effective when used • ICT integration is 51-99% evident • Results of student observations/appraisal are 51-99% used as basis for follow-up.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 #RSH# . Efficiency. #RSH# .MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality.Timelines) • Results of student observations/appraisal are not used as basis for follow-up. Efficiency. 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 . Efficiency.Outstanding • Pupils were 130% and the above guided in the observation of classroom rules and the guidelines as evidenced by descriptive rating in the report card/journal 4 .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# .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 .Timelines) 5 . guidelines and individual and group task with in the rating period TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality.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 .MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES • Initiated discipline of students including classroom rules. toilets and proper waste disposal were 100-114% maintained • Attendance checking was 100-114% systematically carried out 2 .Timelines) 5 . Efficiency. toilets and proper waste disposal were 115-129% maintained • Attendance checking was 115-129% systematically carried out 3 . cleanliness and orderliness of classrooms including proper waste disposal daily TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality. safe. orderliness and cleanliness of floors.Satisfactory • Safety. overall physical atmosphere. toilets and proper waste disposal were 50% and below consistently maintained #RSH# .MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES • Monitored attendance. positive and motivating environment.Poor • Safety. orderliness and cleanliness of floors. orderliness and cleanliness of floors. toilets and proper waste disposal were 130% and above maintained • Attendance checking was 130% and above systematically carried out 4 . orderliness and cleanliness of floors. diversity and appreciation.Outstanding • Safety. orderliness and cleanliness of floors.Unsatisfactory • Safety.Very Satisfactory • Safety. toilets and proper waste disposal were 51-99% maintained • Attendance checking was 51-99% systematically carried out 1 . MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality.Timelines) • Attendance checking was 50% and below systematically carried out #RSH# . Efficiency. Timelines) 5 . Evidence showed that student needs and avenues for growth were clearly identified.Outstanding • Evidence showed that the teacher purposely plans assessments and varies assessment choices to match the different student needs. #RSH# .MFOs KRAs • Pupils/Student Outcomes OBJECTIVES • Monitored and evaluated and maintained pupils/students' progress with in the rating period TIMELINE Weight per KRA 30% PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality. and learning styles.Very Satisfactory • The teacher explained the various uses and limitations of the different kinds of assessments/test. Efficiency. abilities. • 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 . Efficiency.Timelines) • Class record reflected the bases of 115129% 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 .MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality.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 100114% 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# . Efficiency.Timelines) • 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 5199% 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# .MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality. 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# .Timelines) • 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 Remediation/enrichme nt programs to improve performance indicators 5 .MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality. Efficiency.Outstanding • Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 130% and above who need it 4 .Satisfactory • Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 100-114% who need it 2 .Very Satisfactory • Remediation/Enrichment program is offered to 115-129% who need it 3 . MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality.Satisfactory 100-114% of planned meetings conducted producing set of agreements 2 .Very Satisfactory 115-129% of planned meetings producing only set agreements and partial accomplishments of these 3 .Outstanding 130% and above accomplishment with set agreements met 4 .Unsatisfactory 51-99% MPS/GSA 1 .Poor 50% and below of the planned meetings conducted with no result #RSH# .Unsatisfactory 51-99% of planned meetings conducted with minimal results 1 .Very Satisfactory 115%-129% MPS/ GSA 3 .Outstanding • Attained the required GSA for grade level and learning areas 130% and above MPS/GSA 4 .Timelines) 5 .Poor 50% and below MPS/GSA MFO: 1 BASIC EDUCATION POLICY SERVICES • Community Involvement • Conducted periodic PTA meetings/conferences 20% 5 . Efficiency.Satisfactory 100-114% MPS/GSA 2 . Outstanding 130% and above project accomplishment with full documentation report on completion 4 .SERVICES MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES • Visited parents of students needing academic monitoring/follow-up with in the rating period TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality.Satisfactory 100-114% accomplishment of visits with suggested planned interventions 2 .Very Satisfactory 115-129% project accomplishment with partial completion 3 .Poor #RSH# .Poor 50% and below accomplishments with no interventions • Undertaken/initiated projects/events/activit ies with external funding/sponsorship within the target date 5 .Unsatisfactory 51-99% project initiative only with no completion report 1 .Satisfactory 100-114% project initiative only with no completion report 2 . Efficiency.Timelines) 5 .Very Satisfactory 115-129% accomplishment of visits with partial success in implementation of interventions 3 .Outstanding 130% and above accomplishment of set visits successful interventions 4 .Unsatisfactory 51-99% accomplishments of visits with planned interventions 1 . MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality. Efficiency.Timelines) No project/event/activity initiated #RSH# . Satisfactory Participated in most co-curricular/ school activities with documented results 2 . 4 .Unsatisfactory #RSH# .Very Satisfactory 2 action research conducted with full documentation on completion of interventions.MFOs MFO: 2 BASIC EDUCATION SERVICES KRAs • Professional Growth and Development OBJECTIVES • Conducted problem/classroom based action research TIMELINE Weight per KRA 20% PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality.Outstanding Initiated at least 2 co-curricular/ school activities with documented results 4 .Poor Only classroom/learning/issues identified • Initiated/Participated in co-curricular/school activities with in the rating period 5 .Outstanding 3 action research conducted with full documentation on completion of interventions. Efficiency.Very Satisfactory Initiated and participated in co-curricular/ school activities with documented results 3 .Satisfactory 1 action research conducted with full documentation on completion of interventions.Unsatisfactory Identified classroom/learning problems with research proposals 1 . 2 .Timelines) 5 . 3 . Efficiency.Poor No participation in school Activities #RSH# .MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality.Timelines) Participation only with out document results 1 . Satisfactory Produced publication/creative work published in division publications 2 .Outstanding Produced publication/creative work published in National Circulation/ DepEd Post/ CSC Newsletters and similar publications 4 . the rating is multiplied by th weight assigned LEONIEL L. RONSABLE Ratee #RSH# .MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE Weight per KRA • Produced publications/ creative work for school paper/division publication with in the target date PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Quality. Efficiency.Poor Unpublished work produced * Toget the score.Unsatisfactory Produced publication/creative work published in school papers 1 .Timelines) 5 .Very Satisfactory Produced publication/creative work published in regional publications 3 . TO BE FILLED DURING EVALUATION ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS #RSH# RATING SCORE* . ACTUAL RESULTS OVERAL RATING FOR ACCOMPLISHME NTS RATING SCORE* 0 #DIV/0! 0 Rater #RSH# . Sometimes demonstrates. 3 5 Sets high quality. 3. 1 . realistic goals for self and others 2 3 3 4 5 Professionalism and Ethics 1 Demonstrates the values and behavior enshrined in the Norms of Conduct and Ethical Standards for public officials and employee (RA 6713). 4 3. Able to produce very satisfactoy quality of work in terms of usefulness/acceptability and completeness with no supervision required.6 3 4 3 5 4 Result Focus 1 Achieves results with optimal use of time and resources most of the time.COMPETENCIES CORE BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCIES Self-Management 1 Sets personal goals and direction. 4 2 Undertakes personal actions and behaviors that are clear and purposive and takes into account personal goals and values congruent to that of the organization.Role Model.Rarely demonstrates DEPED RPMS form . 3 . 5 Makes specific changes in the system or in own work methods to 4 4 5 3 5 . good grooming and communication. mistakes and wastage through effective work methods by placing organizational needs before personal needs.) to achieve goals. Service Orientation 1 4 2 Practices ethical and professional behavior and conduct taking into account the impact of his/her actions and decisions.2 Teamwork 1 2 Displays emotional maturity and enthusiasm for and is challenged by higher goals 3 4 Prioritize work tasks and schedules (through gantt charts. 3 3 Maintains professional image: being trustworthy. 4 4 Makes personal sacrifices to meet the organization's needs. 4 .DEPED form . checklists.Most of the time demonstrates. May focus on new or more precise ways of meeting goals set. improves systems and help others improve their effectiveness. 2 Innovation 1 3 2 3 3 3 Delivers error-free outputs most of the time by conforming to standard operating procedures correctly and consistently. etc. needs and development. challenging. 5 Acts with a sense pf urgency and responsibility to meet the organization's needs. regularity of attendance and punctuality. 2 Avoids rework. 2 .Consistently demonstrates.2 3 4 Expresses a desire to do better and may express frustration at waste or inefficiency. 3. conciseness. Note: These ratings can be used for the developmental plans of the employee. Memos.) Secures information from required references (i. schedules.e. 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 . 3 instructions) for specific purposes. numbers. fluency.Sometimes demonstrates. notices. fluently and articulately. Demonstrates clarity. Directories.g. minutes. 2 Expresses self clearly.Role Model. phonetic notation and content. 1 . 3. 3 Uses appropriate medium for the message.4 4 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 4 Written Communication 1 2 Knows the different written business communication formats used in the DepEd. impact. etc. 4 Self-edits words.Most of the time demonstrates. 3 . 4 Adjust communication style to others. 4 . narrative and descriptive report based on ready available information data with minimal spelling or grammatical error/s (e.Consistently demonstrates.Rarely demonstrates . Writes routine correspondence/communications. 5 Guides discussions between and among peers to meet an objective.. and effectiveness in his/her written 5 communications. if necessary. 2 .CORE SKILLS Computer / ICT Skills Oral Communication 1 1 Follows instructions accurately. DEPED RPMS form .DEP . without setting any specific goal. issues and problems. Uses ingenious methods to accomplish responsibilties. 3 Drives consensus and team ownership of decisions. Fosters new ideas. 3 3 3 Promotes a creative climate and inspires co-workers to develop original ideas or solutions. 2 3 1 . 4 Translates creative thinking into tangible changes and solutions that improve the work unit and organization. mwork Willingly does his/her share of responsibilty.improve performance. Demonstrates an ability to think "beyond the box". 3 Develops and adopts service improvement programs through simplified procedures that will further enhance service delivery. mission. at alower cost. costumer satisfaction.For Head of Office |4 . or improving quality. Continuously focuses on improving personal productivity to create higher value and results. 4 Works constructively and collaboratively with others and across organizations to accomplish organizational goals and objectives. 4 Takes personal responsibilty for dealing with and/or correcting costumer service issues and concerns 3 Initiates activities that promotes advocacy for men and women empowerment. and suggests bettter ways to do things (cost and/or operational efficiency). more efficiently.DEPED form . faster. Examples may include doing something better.Rarely demonstrates DEPED RPMS form . 3 3. morale. 3 Participates in updating of office vision. mandates & strategies based on DepEd strategies and directions. Promotes collaboration and removes barriers to teamwork and goal accomplishment across the organization 4 3 Applies negotiation principles in arriving at win-win agreements. 3 2 ovation Examines the root cause of problems and suggests effective solutions. processes. Demonstrates resourcefulness and the ability to succeed with minimal resources.4 ice Orientation Can explain and articulate organizational directions. spreadsheets and graphic presentations using Word Processing and Excel. reports.puter / ICT Skills Prepares basic compositions ( e. and work on a given task with acceptable speed and accuracy and connects computer peripherals ( e.. turns the computer on/off.g. 3 2 Utilizes technologies to : access information to enhance professional productivity. 2 Recommends appropriate and updated technology to enhance productivity and professional practice..2 Prepares simple presentations using Powerpoint.Rarely demonstrates . etc.g. Identifies different computer parts. multi-media projectors. assists in conducting research and communicate through local and global professional networks. 2 nstrates. printers.) 2 2. 1 . modems. letters. DEPED RPMS form .For Teachers .DEPED form . Name of Employee: LEONIEL L.PART III: SUMMARY OF RATINGS FOR DISCUSSION Final Performance Results Rating Accomplishments of KRAs and Objectives #DIV/0! 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. RONSABLE Name of Superior: Signature: Signature: Date: Date: 0 PART IV: DEVELOPMENT PLANS Strengths Development Needs Action Plan (Recommended Developmental Intervention) Timeline . D .LEONIEL L. RONSABLE Ratee DEPED RPMS form . 0 Resources Needed . 0 Rater DEPED RPMS form .DEPED form -For Teacher | .