Results – Based Performance Management System (RPMS)

Implementation in the Department of Education,

Division of Aklan: Basis for Policy

Recommendation

Jomer B. Ata, PhD

This study measured the extent of implementation of the

Results – Based Performance Management System in the Department

of Education (DepEd), Division of Aklan. Also, this study

identified the strengths/best practices and an action plan in the

implementation of RPMS.

The mixed-methods research using sequential explanatory

strategy was utilized in this study and was conducted in the

DepEd, Division of Aklan involving 19 school districts.

The respondents of this study were all the 80 master

teachers and school heads of the identified schools who were the

raters in implementation of the RPMS, and out of 841 teachers

from identified schools in the division, 272 participated as

ratees.

A researcher-made instrument that was based on DepEd Order

No. 2, series of 2015 on Guidelines on the Establishment and

Implementation of the Results-Based Performance Management System

(RPMS) was utilized in this study. The instrument underwent

validity and reliability tests.

To verify the quantitative result of the survey, focus group

discussion was conducted with selected raters and ratees. using

the Google Meet application in compliance with COVID 19 health

protocol.

The data were tabulated and analyzed using Microsoft Excel

to determine the weighted mean of the responses on the extent of

implementation of RPMS in the DepEd, Division of Aklan.

To determine the significant difference of the normal data,

t-test was used. However, the non-normal data were tested using

Mann-Whitney U Test.

To analyze the qualitative data gathered, content analysis

was used. The responses of the key informants during the FGD were

interpreted by providing the closest possible meaning which was

categorized to formulate themes.

The following results of this study were the following:

1. Based on the assessment of the raters, there was high extent

of implementation of RPMS policy in the Division under

performance planning and commitment ( x́ =4.28), performance

monitoring and coaching ( x́ =4.20), performance review and

evaluation ( x́ =4.26) and performance rewarding and

developmental planning ( x́ =4.21). 

 The overall extent of implementation of RPMS policy

based on the raters’ evaluation was also high extent ( x́

=4.24).

2. Based on teacher-ratees’ evaluation, the extent of

implementation of RPMS policy in the Division under

performance planning and commitment ( x́ =4.210, performance

monitoring and coaching ( x́ =4.14), performance review and

evaluation ( x́ =4.13) and performance rewarding and

developmental planning ( x́ =4.03), all phases were at high

extent. 

The overall extent of implementation of RPMS policy

based on ratees’ evaluation was high ( x́ =4.04).

3. There was a significant difference in the extent

implementation of RPMS in the Division between raters and

ratees on performance review and evaluation and performance

rewarding and development planning, with p – values 0.008

and 0.000, respectively. No significant difference in extent

of implementation were observed between the raters and

ratees in terms of performance planning and commitment and

performance monitoring and coaching with p – value of 0.102

and 0.784, respectively. Overall result showed a significant

difference in the responses of the school heads and teachers

on the extent of implementation of RPMS.

 4. The strengths and best practices identified in the

implementation of RPMS were awareness of the policy, high

commitment, supportive and cooperative teachers, consistent

mentoring and coaching, and conduct of schools learning

action cell (SLAC) session.

5. An action plan was based on the hindering factor/s per phase

of RPMS to become recommendations to improve the

implementation of the policy.

This study concluded that the implementation of RPMS policy in

secondary schools in the Division was observed assiduously by

school heads/master teachers since its implementation in 2015.

The schools were highly compliant to DepEd Order which also

stemmed from the directive of the Civil Service Commission.

Moreover, the school heads were fully aware of the RPMS

policy. They were trying their best to implement the policy in

terms of planning and commitment, monitoring and coaching, review

and evaluation, and rewarding and developmental planning. The

teachers, as ratees, also highly rated the whole implementation

process and have complied to the requirements set by the policy.

Raters and Ratees have developed a strong support system and

agreement in improving individual performance of teachers.

Another, school heads have employed good governance and

management practices that would improve teachers’ performance

while teachers give full cooperation and support to the

implementation of RPMS.

Performance rewarding and development planning is given

equal value just like the three other phases.

School heads/master teachers and teachers agree on the

extent of implementation of RPMS in two phases but their views

vary significantly in review and evaluation and rewarding and

development planning. The evaluation of the implementation of

RPMS reveals strong points that can further strengthen and

improve the policy, particularly in creating awareness, arousing

high commitment, dedication of teachers, advantages of mentoring

and coaching and value of creating learning action plan.

Based on the results and conclusions mentioned above the

following were recommended:

Firstly, Department of Education must conduct a series of

capability building, not only for school heads being the raters,

but for the teachers as well since they are the ones being

evaluated utilizing the RPMS.

Secondly, school heads and master teachers, being the

raters, should be capacitated on mentoring and coaching so that

they could provide technical assistance to their teachers.

Thirdly, DepEd Division of Aklan through focal persons

should regularly monitor the implementation of the RPMS policy.

 Fourthly, school heads must be consistent in the conduct of

mid-year and year-end evaluation so that teachers’ performance

will be monitored.

Lastly, strengthen the conduct of schools learning action

cell (SLAC) session to develop teachers and help them improve

their performance.

On the other hand, the results of this study were

significant leading to train teachers on different teaching

strategies in order to obtain outstanding rating during the

performance evaluation.

Another, the result of the performance evaluation must not

only be the basis in evaluating the teachers’ performance but

also serve as basis of development programs for them.

This study would provide school heads sufficient knowledge

on the implementation process of the results-based policy

management system. It would guide them on what to do in every

phase of the RPMS cycle and extend technical assistance to the

master teachers who are also raters of their fellow teachers

under the supervision of the school heads.

It provides information to all master teachers who are also

raters on how to implement the RPMS in their respective schools.

These would help them improve teachers’ performance to support to

the school heads.

 The result of the study serves as their basis in extending

technical assistance to all school heads and teachers in the

performance of their duties and functions.

Moreover, the result of this study would provide the

teachers a better understanding of the Results-Based Performance

Management System. These would help them realize that RPMS as a

management system would help them better perform their duties and

responsibilities accordingly.

In addition, the result would encourage the non-teaching

personnel to perform their duties as provided in their individual

performance commitment and review. Likewise, it would also

strengthen the support from the school heads on the

implementation of the RPMS in their respective schools.

Furthermore, this would serve as reference for those who

would conduct similar studies given different conditions and sets

of respondents.