Ipcrf Sy 2022 2023

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW FORM (IPCRF) FOR TEACHERS I-III

Name of Employee: PRINCESS MAY O. ITALIA Name of Rater: MA. CECILIA R. REGNIM
Position: TEACHER II Position: MASTER TEACHER II
Bureau/Center/Service/Division: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Date of Review: AUGUST 15,2022
Rating Period: AUGUST 2022-JULY 2023
KRA 1: Content Knowledge and Pedagogy
PERFORMANCE
Very INDICATOR ACTUAL
OBJECTIVE MEANS OF VERIFICATION Outstanding Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor RESULTS
Rating (Quality) SCORE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
1. Applied Classroom Observation Tool (COT) rating Demonstrated (4)
Demonstrated Demonstrated Demonstrated Demonstrated
sheet/s or inter-observer agreement form/s Level 7 in Level 6 in Level 5 in Level 4 in Level 3 in
knowledge
done through onsite / face-to-face/ in-person Objective 1 as Objective 1 as Objective 1 as Objective 1 as Objective 1 as
of content shown in COT
classroom shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT
within and rating sheets /
If onsite / face-to-face / in- rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets /
across implemented, inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer
inter-observer
curriculum • though observation of Quality agreement forms agreement forms agreement forms agreement forms
agreement forms
or
teaching areas. synchronous / No acceptable
(PPST 1.1.2) asynchronous teaching evidence was
in other modalities; or shown
• through observation of
a demonstration
teaching* via LAC Objective was Objective was No acceptable
session. met within the met but evidence was
Efficiency allotted time instruction
exceeded the
shown
allotted time
* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.
Notes:
1. PPST Resource Package Module 1 offers illustrative and instructive information that can help ratees achieve this objective (PPST Indicator 1.1.2).
2.In computing the rating for Quality: (i) get the corresponding RPMS 5-point scale rating of each COT rating; (ii) calculate the average of the RPMS ratings; and (iii) find the transmuted RPMS rating. See sample computation below:

RPMS Rating Transmutation Table

Means of Verification COT Rating RPMS 5-point Scale Rating Average RPMS Rating for Quality
COT Rating Sheet 1 6 4 Outstanding (5) 4.500-5.000
COT Rating Sheet 2 5 3 4 Very Satisfactory (4) 3.500-4.499
3.500
COT Rating Sheet 3 5 3 (Very Satisfactory) Satisfactory (3) 2.500-3.499
COT Rating Sheet 4 6 4 Unsatisfactory (2) 1.500-2.499
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499
RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 1 of 15

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
2. Used a range Classroom Observation (4)
Demonstrated Demonstrated Demonstrated Demonstrated Demonstrated
of teaching Tool (COT) rating sheet/s Level 7 in Level 6 in Level 5 in Level 4 in Level 3 in
strategies that or inter-observer Objective 2 as Objective 2 as Objective 2 as Objective 2 as Objective 2 as
enhance agreement form/s done shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT
through onsite / face-to-face
learner rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets /
/ in-person classroom inter-observer
achievement in inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer agreement forms
observation. Quality
literacy and agreement agreement agreement agreement or
numeracy If onsite / face-to-face / in- forms forms forms forms No acceptable
skills. person classes are not evidence was
(PPST 1.4.2) implemented, shown
synchronous /
asynchronous teaching Objective was Objective was No acceptable
in other modalities; or
met within the met but evidence was
a demonstration
allotted time instruction shown
teaching* via LAC exceeded the
session. Efficiency allotted time

Notes:
2. In computing the rating for Quality: (i) get the corresponding RPMS 5-point scale rating of each COT rating; (ii) calculate the average of the RPMS ratings; and (iii) find the transmuted RPMS rating. See sample computation below:
Means of Verification COT Rating RPMS 5-point Scale Rating Average RPMS Rating forQuality RPMS Rating
COT Rating Sheet 1 6 4 Transmutation
Outstanding (5) Table
4.500-5.000
3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

OBJECTIVE MEANS OF VERIFICATION PERFORMANCE
Outstanding RESULTS
QET Satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor
(5)
3. Applied a Classroom Observation Demonstrated (4)
Demonstrated (3)
Demonstrated (2)
Demonstrated (1)
Demonstrated
range of Tool (COT) rating sheet/s Level 7 in Level 6 in Level 5 in Level 4 in Level 3 in
or inter-observer Objective 3 as Objective 3 as Objective 3 as Objective 3 as Objective 3 as
teaching shown in COT shown in COT
strategies to agreement form/s done shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT
rating sheets / rating sheets /
through onsite / face-to-face rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets /
develop inter-observer inter-observer
/ in-person classroom inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer agreement forms agreement forms
critical and observation. agreement forms agreement forms agreement forms
creative Quality
or
thinking, as If onsite / face-to-face / in-
well as person classes are not No acceptable
other implemented, evidence was
shown
higher-order • through observation of
thinking synchronous /
skills. asynchronous teaching
(PPST 1.5.2) in other modalities; or Objective was Objective was No acceptable
• through observation of met within the met but evidence was
a demonstration allotted time instruction
exceeded the
shown
teaching* via LAC

Notes:
4.500-5.000
3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

KRA 2: Learning Environment & Diversity of Learners
Outstanding RESULTS
(5)
4. Managed Classroom Observation (4)
Demonstrated Demonstrated (3)
Demonstrated (2)
Demonstrated (1)
Demonstrated
classroom Tool (COT) rating sheet/s Level 7 in Level 6 in Level 5 in Level 4 in Level 3 in
structure to or inter-observer Objective Objective 4 as Objective 4 as Objective 4 as Objective 4 as
engage agreement form/s done 4 as shown in shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT
learners, COT rating rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets /
/ in-person classroom
individually or in observation.
sheets / inter- inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer
groups, in Quality observer agreement agreement agreement agreement
meaningful If onsite / face-to-face / in- agreement forms forms forms forms
exploration, person classes are not forms or
discovery and implemented, No acceptable
hands-on • through observation of evidence
activities within synchronous /
a range of asynchronous teaching
in other modalities; or Objective was Objective was No acceptable
physical
learning
a demonstration allotted time instruction shown
environments.
(PPST 2.3.2) session. Efficiency allotted time

Notes:
1.PPST Resource Package Module 4 offers illustrative and instructive information that can help ratees achieve this objective (PPST Indicator 2.3.2).
Means of Verification COT RPMS 5 Point RPMS Rating for RPMS Rating
Average Transmutation Table
Rating Scale Rating Quality Outstanding (5) 4.500-5.000
3.500
Unsatisfactory (2) 1.500-2.499
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
learner behavior Tool (COT) rating sheet/s Level 7 in Level 6 in Level 5 in Level 4 in Level 3 in
constructively or inter-observer Objective 5 as Objective 5 as Objective 5 as Objective 5 as Objective 5 as
by applying agreement form/s done shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT
positive and through onsite / face-to-face rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets /
non-violent observation. inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer
discipline to Quality agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement
ensure learning- If onsite / face-to-face / in- forms forms forms forms forms
focused person classes are not or
environments. implemented, No acceptable
(PPST 2.6.2) • through observation of evidence was
synchronous / shown
asynchronous teaching
• through observation of Objective was Objective was No acceptable
a demonstration met within the met but evidence was
teaching* via LAC allotted time instruction shown
session. exceeded the
Efficiency
allotted time

Notes:
COT RPMS 5 Point RPMS Rating for RPMS Rating

Means of Verification Average Transmutation Table
3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
6. Used Classroom Observation (4)
differentiated, Tool (COT) rating sheet/s Level 7 in Level 6 in Level 5 in Level 4 in Level 3 in
developmentally or inter-observer Objective 6 as Objective 6 as Objective 6 as Objective 6 as Objective 6 as
appropriate agreement form/s done shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT
learning rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets /
experiences to observation. inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer
address Quality agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement
learners’ If onsite / face-to-face / in- forms forms forms forms forms
gender, person classes are not or
needs, implemented, No acceptable
strengths, • through observation of evidence was
interests and synchronous / shown
experiences. asynchronous teaching
(PPST 3.1.2) in other modalities; or
Efficiency allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

KRA 3: Curriculum and Planning
PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
7. Planned, Classroom Observation (4)
managed and Tool (COT) rating sheet/s Level 7 in Level 6 in Level 5 in Level 4 in Level 3 in
implemented or inter-observer Objective 7 as Objective 7 as Objective 7 as Objective 7 as Objective 7 as
developmentally agreement form/s done shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT
sequenced through onsite / face-to-face rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets /
teaching and observation. inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer
learning Quality agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement
processes to If onsite / face-to-face / in- forms forms forms forms forms
meet curriculum person classes are not or
requirements implemented, No acceptable
and varied • through observation of evidence was
teaching synchronous / shown
contexts. asynchronous teaching
Efficiency
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

Outstanding RESULTS
(5)
8. Participated 1. Proof/s of attendance in Planned for (4) on
Reflected (3)
Shared (2) LAC No acceptable
Attended (1)
in collegial LAC sessions / FGDs / enriched practices during practices, sessions / FGDs evidence was
discussions meetings / other collegial teaching LAC sessions / teacher and / shown
that use discussions practice based FGDs / learner meetings / other
2. Minutes of LAC sessions
teacher and on meetings / feedback collegial
/ FGDs / meetings / other
learner collegial discussions on
LAC sessions / other collegial during LAC discussions that
feedback to use of teacher and FGDs / discussions to sessions / FGDs discuss
enrich teaching learner feedback to meetings / plan, facilitate, / teacher/learner
practice. enrich teaching practice other collegial and meetings / other feedback to
(PPST 4.4.2) 3. Reflection notes of teachers on their Quality discussions enrich teaching collegial enrich
demonstration of teaching practices attended, as practice, as discussions to instruction, as
following participation shown in MOV 3 shown in MOV 3 plan, facilitate, shown in MOV 1
from LAC sessions / and
FGDs / meetings / other enrich teaching
collegial discussions that practice, as
use teacher and learner
shown in MOV 2
feedback to enrich
teaching practice, with
proof/s of attendance
4. Any equivalent ALS form/document
that highlights the objective Participated in Participated in Participated in Participated in a No acceptable
collegial collegial
collegial discussions that collegial discussion that evidence was
discussions that discuss teacher discussions that discusses teacher shown
discuss teacher and learner discuss teacher and learner
and learner feedback across and learner feedback in only
Timelines feedback across
3 quarters
feedback across
1 quarter
4 quarters 2 quarters
*MOVs for the rating of this performance measure must contain date stamps to track conduct of such activities (e.g., date in the attendance sheets, minutes, and reflection notes, minutes).
Note: PPST Resource Package Module 8 offers illustrative and instructive information that can help ratees achieve this objective (PPST Indicator 4.4.2).

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
9. Selected, Classroom Observation (4)
developed, Tool (COT) rating sheet/s Level 7 in Level 6 in Level 5 in Level 4 in Level 3 in
organized and or inter-observer Objective 9 as Objective 9 as Objective 9 as Objective 9 as Objective 9 as
used agreement form/s done shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT
appropriate through onsite / face-to-face rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets /
resources, If onsite / face-to-face / in- forms forms forms forms forms
including ICT, to person classes are not or
address learning implemented, No acceptable
goals. • through observation of evidence was
(PPST 4.5.2) synchronous / shown
session. Efficiency exceeded the
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

KRA 4: Assessment and Reporting
PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
10. Designed, Classroom Observation (4)
selected, Tool (COT) rating sheet/s Level 7 in Level 6 in Level 5 in Level 4 in Level 3 in
used diagnostic, agreement form/s done shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT shown in COT
formative and through onsite / face-to-face rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets / rating sheets /
summative observation. inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer inter-observer
assessment Quality agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement
strategies If onsite / face-to-face / in- forms forms forms forms forms
consistent with person classes are not or
curriculum implemented, No acceptable
requirements. • through observation of evidence was
a demonstration
teaching* via LAC Objective was
No acceptable
session. Objective was met but
evidence was
Efficiency met within the instruction
shown
allotted time exceeded the
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
11. Monitored Any one (1) of the following: Involved (4) and Monitored and Monitored and No acceptable
Monitored
and evaluated ● Individual Learning learner/s evaluated evaluated evaluated evidence was
learner Monitoring Plan (ILMP) in monitoring learner learner learner shown
progress and ● Peer assessment data and progress and progress and progress and
achievement ● Sample of learners’ output evaluation of achievement achievement achievement
using learner with reflection / self- their based on based on the based on an
attainment assessment own progress attainment data class attainment existing grade
data. ● Progress charts/anecdotal and from an data level /
(PPST 5.2.2) records achievement individual department
● Class/e-class record/grading Quality learner / learning area
sheets report
● Lesson plans showing
index of mastery
● Frequency of errors with
identified least/most mastered skills
● Any equivalent ALS
form/document that highlights the
objective
(e.g., Individual Learning
Agreement (ILA), ALS Assessment Submitted Submitted Submitted Submitted No acceptable
Form 2) MOV/s MOV/s MOV/s MOV/s evidence was
● Others (Please specify and show/s show/s show/s show/s shown
provide annotations) monitoring monitoring
monitoring and evaluation monitoring and evaluation
and evaluation done across 3 and evaluation done in only 1
Timelines done across 4 quarters done across 2 quarter
quarters quarters

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
12. Any one (1) of the Sustained (4)
Communicated Communicated Communicated No acceptable
Communicated following: engagement promptly and promptly and learners’ needs, evidence was
promptly and ● A sample of corrected through regular clearly using clearly using progress and shown
clearly the test paper of a learner communication of various tools only one (1) achievement to
in a learning area with learners’ needs, and strategies strategy learners’ key stakeholders,
learners’
parent’s or guardian’s progress and learners’ needs, needs, progress including
needs, progress signature and date of achievement to progress and and achievement parents/guardians
and receipt key stakeholders, achievement to to key , but not
achievement to with key stakeholders including key stakeholders, stakeholders, regularly as
key (e.g., PTA, SGC, SPT, parents/guardians including including shown in the
stakeholders, CPC) with proof of attendance Quality , as shown in the parents/guardians parents/guardians MOV
including ● Report card with parent’s or MOV submitted , as shown in the , as shown in the submitted
parents/ guardian’s signature in all quarters MOV submitted MOV submitted
guardians. supported by minutes of
(PPST 5.4.2) meeting
● Communication with
key stakeholders (e.g.,
parents/guardians, co-
teachers, LGU) using
various modalities
● Anecdotal record showing entries
per quarter Showed prompt Showed prompt Showed prompt Showed prompt No acceptable
● Any equivalent ALS communication of communication communication of communication evidence was
form/document that learners’ needs, of learners’ needs, of
highlights the objective learners’ needs, learners’ needs, shown
progress and progress and progress and progress and
● Others (Please specify and provide achievement achievement achievement in
achievement
annotations) across 4 across 3 across 2 only 1 quarter
quarters quarters quarters
Timelines

KRA 5: Personal Growth and Professional Development
PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
13. Applied a A reflection/journal entry that (4) MOV Submitted MOV Submitted MOV No acceptable
Submitted MOV Submitted
personal highlights the application of a learner- that details the that reflects that shows the that indicates a evidence was
philosophy of centered teaching philosophy in the consistent involvement of application of a personal shown
teaching that is lesson plan or community work involvement of learners in the personal philosophy of
learners in the teaching-learning
learner- philosophy of teaching that is
teaching-learning process resulting
centered. process resulting from the
teaching that is not learner-
(PPST 7.1.2) from the application of a learner-centered centered
application of a personal
personal philosophy of
Quality philosophy of teaching that is
teaching that is learner-centered
learner-centered
Applied a Applied a Applied a Applied a No acceptable

personal personal personal personal evidence was
philosophy of philosophy of philosophy of philosophy of shown
teaching that is teaching that is
teaching that is learner- teaching that is learner-
learner-centered centered across learner-centered centered in only
Timelines across 4 quarters 3 quarters across 2 quarters 1 quarter

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
14. Set 1. Certification from the ICT Updated (4)
Discussed Set Accomplished No acceptable
professional Coordinator / School Head / professional progress on professional the e-SAT at evidence was
development Focal Person in charge of e- development professional development the shown
goals based on SAT goals during development goals based beginning of
the Philippine 2. IPCRF-DP Phase II of the goals with the on the
Professional 3. Mid-year Review Form (MRF) Quality RPMS Cycle rater during the e-SAT results school year as
Standards for 4. Updated IPCRF-DP from as evidenced mid-year as evidenced by
Teachers. Phase II by MOV 4 review as evidenced by MOV 1
(PPST 7.5.2) evidenced by MOV 2
MOV 3
Submitted 4 Submitted 3 Submitted 2 Submitted 1 No acceptable

acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable evidence was
Efficiency MOVs MOVs MOVs MOV shown
All four (4) Three (3) of Two (2) of the Only one (1) No acceptable
submitted the submitted of the evidence was
MOVs submitted MOVs were submitted shown
MOVs were MOVs was
were accomplishe accomplished accomplishe
accomplished d within the within the d within the
Timelines within the prescribed prescribed prescribed
prescribed RPMS Phase RPMS Phase RPMS Phase
RPMS Phase

Plus Factor
PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
15. Performed Any one (1) proof of: (4) at least Performed at least Performed at least
Performed at least one Performed No acceptable
● committee involvement; (1) related work one (1) related work one (1) related work one (1) related work evidence was
various related ● involvement as / activity that / activity that / activity that / activity that shown
works / module/learning material contributed to the
teaching-learning
contributed to the contributed to the contributed to the
activities that writer/validator; process beyond the
teaching-learning teaching-learning teaching-learning
● involvement as a resource process within the process within the process within the
contribute to person/speaker/learning school /
school / learning class as evidenced
Community
the teaching- facilitator in in the RO/SDO/school-initiated Quality Learning Center (CLC) Community area/department as by the submitted
learning TV/radio-based instruction; as evidenced by the Learning Center evidenced by the MOV.
● book or journal authorship/ submitted MOV. (CLC) as evidenced submitted MOV.
process. co-authorship/contributorship; by the submitted
● advisorship/coordinatorship/ MOV.
chairpersonship;
● participation in demonstration
teaching;
● participation as research presenter in a Submitted MOV that Submitted MOV that Submitted MOV that Submitted MOV that No acceptable
details the achieved details the perceived shows reasonable shows considerable evidence was
forum/conference; positive contribution to positive contribution to interlap with the actual overlap with, hence
● mentoring of pre-service/in- service shown
the
teachers; teaching-learning the teaching- significantly affecting
● conducted research within Efficiency process, as evidenced by teaching-learning learning process, as the performance of the
the process, as evidenced evidenced by the actual teaching-
the rating period; annotation provided. by the annotation provided. learning process.
● others (please specify) annotation provided.
with annotation on how it
contributed to the teaching- Submitted MOVs Submitted MOVs Submitted MOVs Submitted MOV/s No acceptable
learning process. were distributed were distributed were distributed was/were evidence was
Timelines across 4 quarters across 3 quarters across 2 quarters completed in only
1 quarter
shown
RATING FOR OVERALL ACCOMPLISHMENTS

ADJECTIVAL RATING EQUIVALENCES
RANGE ADJECTIVAL RATING
4.500-5.000 Outstanding
3.500-4.499 Very Satisfactory PRINCESS MAY O. ITALIA MA. CECILIA R.REGNIM WENEMA JOY C. FLORES
2.500-3.499 Satisfactory Ratee Rater Approving Authority
1.500-2.499 Unsatisfactory
Below 1.499 Poor

Name of Employee: MA. EMILY L. ROMBANO Name of Rater: MA. CECILIA R. REGNIM
Position: TEACHER I Position: MASTER TEACHER II
PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
knowledge
inter-observer
agreement forms
or
a demonstration
exceeded the
shown
allotted time
Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
synchronous /
a demonstration

Notes:
4.500-5.000
3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

Outstanding RESULTS
(5)
Demonstrated (3)
Demonstrated (2)
Demonstrated (1)
Demonstrated
creative Quality
or
shown
exceeded the
shown
teaching* via LAC

Notes:
4.500-5.000
3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

Outstanding RESULTS
(5)
Demonstrated (2)
Demonstrated (1)
Demonstrated
physical
learning
environments.

Notes:
3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
synchronous / shown
Efficiency
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
Efficiency
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

Outstanding RESULTS
(5)
Reflected (3)
Attended (1)
shown in MOV 2
feedback to enrich
collegial collegial
3 quarters
feedback across
1 quarter

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
a demonstration
No acceptable
evidence was
shown
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
Monitored
sheets report
index of mastery
objective
quarters quarters

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
learners’
various modalities
achievement
Timelines

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
learner-centered


PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
MOV 3

MOVs were MOVs was
RPMS Phase

Plus Factor
PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
teaching-learning
Community
chairpersonship;
teaching;
the
1 quarter
shown

3.500-4.499 Very Satisfactory MA. EMILY L. ROMBANO MA. CECILIA R.REGNIM WENEMA JOY C. FLORES
Below 1.499 Poor

Name of Employee: RAQUEL P. ADAN Name of Rater: MA. CECILIA R. REGNIM

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
knowledge
inter-observer
agreement forms
or
a demonstration
exceeded the
shown
allotted time
Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
synchronous /
a demonstration

Notes:
4.500-5.000
3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

Outstanding RESULTS
(5)
Demonstrated (3)
Demonstrated (2)
Demonstrated (1)
Demonstrated
creative Quality
or
shown
exceeded the
shown
teaching* via LAC

Notes:
4.500-5.000
3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

Outstanding RESULTS
(5)
Demonstrated (2)
Demonstrated (1)
Demonstrated
physical
learning
environments.

Notes:
3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
synchronous / shown
Efficiency
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
Efficiency
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

Outstanding RESULTS
(5)
Reflected (3)
Attended (1)
shown in MOV 2
feedback to enrich
collegial collegial
3 quarters
feedback across
1 quarter

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
a demonstration
No acceptable
evidence was
shown
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
Monitored
sheets report
index of mastery
objective
quarters quarters

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
learners’
various modalities
achievement
Timelines

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
learner-centered


PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
MOV 3

MOVs were MOVs was
RPMS Phase

Plus Factor
PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
teaching-learning
Community
chairpersonship;
teaching;
the
1 quarter
shown

3.500-4.499 Very Satisfactory RAQUEL P. ADAN MA. CECILIA R.REGNIM WENEMA JOY C. FLORES
Below 1.499 Poor

n
Name of Employee: RAQUEL P. ADAN Name of Rater: MA. CECILIA R. REGNIM

Bureau/Center/Service/Division: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Date of Review: July 1, 2023
PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
knowledge
inter-observer
agreement forms
or
a demonstration
exceeded the
shown
allotted time
Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
synchronous /
a demonstration

Notes:
4.500-5.000
3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

Outstanding RESULTS
(5)
Demonstrated (3)
Demonstrated (2)
Demonstrated (1)
Demonstrated
creative Quality
or
shown
exceeded the
shown
teaching* via LAC

Notes:
4.500-5.000
3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

Outstanding RESULTS
(5)
Demonstrated (2)
Demonstrated (1)
Demonstrated
physical
learning
environments.

Notes:
3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
synchronous / shown
Efficiency
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
Efficiency
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

Outstanding RESULTS
(5)
Reflected (3)
Attended (1)
shown in MOV 2
feedback to enrich
collegial collegial
3 quarters
feedback across
1 quarter

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
a demonstration
No acceptable
evidence was
shown
allotted time

Notes:

3.500
Poor (1) 1.000-1.499

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
Monitored
sheets report
index of mastery
objective
quarters quarters

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
learners’
various modalities
achievement
Timelines

PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
learner-centered


PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
MOV 3

MOVs were MOVs was
RPMS Phase

Plus Factor
PERFORMANCE
QET Satisfactory
(5) (3) (2) (1)
teaching-learning
Community
chairpersonship;
teaching;
the
1 quarter
shown

3.500-4.499 Very Satisfactory RAQUEL P. ADAN MA. CECILIA R.REGNIM WENEMA JOY C. FLORES
Below 1.499 Poor

Ipcrf Sy 2022 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ipcrf Sy 2022 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ipcrf Sy 2022 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW FORM (IPCRF) FOR TEACHERS I-III

RPMS Rating Transmutation Table

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 1 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 2 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 3 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 4 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

COT RPMS 5 Point RPMS Rating for RPMS Rating

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 5 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

COT RPMS 5 Point RPMS Rating for RPMS Rating

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 6 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

COT RPMS 5 Point RPMS Rating for RPMS Rating

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 7 of 15

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 8 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

COT RPMS 5 Point RPMS Rating for RPMS Rating

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 9 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

COT RPMS 5 Point RPMS Rating for RPMS Rating

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 10 of 15

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 11 of 15

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 12 of 15

Applied a Applied a Applied a Applied a No acceptable

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 13 of 15

Submitted 4 Submitted 3 Submitted 2 Submitted 1 No acceptable

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 14 of 15

RATING FOR OVERALL ACCOMPLISHMENTS

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 15 of 15

RPMS Rating Transmutation Table

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 1 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 2 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 3 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 4 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

COT RPMS 5 Point RPMS Rating for RPMS Rating

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 5 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

COT RPMS 5 Point RPMS Rating for RPMS Rating

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 6 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

COT RPMS 5 Point RPMS Rating for RPMS Rating

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 7 of 15

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 8 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

COT RPMS 5 Point RPMS Rating for RPMS Rating

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 9 of 15

* The demonstration teaching must always reflect the teaching-learning process.

COT RPMS 5 Point RPMS Rating for RPMS Rating

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 10 of 15

RPMS Tool for S.Y. 2022-2023 | Proficient Teachers Page 11 of 15