RPMS Phase 1: SY

2019-2020 OPCRF
Irene S. Angway
Assistant Schools Division Superintendent
 4 Phases of RPMS and Schedule for
School-based Personnel
Quality, Relevant, Effective and Liberating Basic Education

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Performance Planning and Performance Monitoring Performance Review and Performance Rewarding
Commitment and Coaching Evaluation and Development
(May) (November) (April) Planning
 School OPCRF with Master Teacher and Teachers’ IPCRF
School OPCRF KRAs Master Teachers’ IPCRF Teachers’ IPCRF KRAs
KRAs
School Leadership Content Knowledge and Content Knowledge and
Pedagogy Pedagogy
Instructional Leadership Learning Environment and Learning Environment and
Diversity of Learner Diversity of Learners

Human Resource Curriculum and Planning Curriculum and Planning

Development
Resource Management Assessment and Reporting Assessment and Reporting

School Community Plus Factor (other functions Plus Factor (other functions
Partnership in the school) in the school)
School Office Performance Commitment

 Primary responsibility of the school head but

accomplishment of the whole school

 Must be planned with all school personnel

 Used as an assessment tool of school head’s and

school performance
 4 Phases of RPMS For Teachers
Quality, Relevant, Effective and Liberating Basic Education

Phase 1
Performance Planning and Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Commitment Performance Monitoring and Performance Review and Performance Rewarding and
Coaching (Portfolio Evaluation (Portfolio/ Development Planning (Post-
(Pre-Assessment Preparation and Organization) Document Assessment) Assessment and Dev’t)
Phase)

Rate Portfolio based on

TIP-PPST-RPMS
Cluster Training
and organizing portfolio
SLAC on PPST-RPMS
- Familiarization on
the RPMS Tools
- last week of May
Guide the teachers in the MOV presented
Assist the teacher in
preparing documents - After graduation
preparing the
- October to March
Development Plans
- After assessment
 Phase 1: Performance Planning &
Commitment
 Rater and Ratee discuss and agree on (1) KRA,
(2) Objectives, (3) Performance Indicators, (4)
Others as needed
 Ensure alignment with the (1) OSDS OPCRF –
Office plans and commitment, (2) overall
organizational outcomes
 IPCRF – anchored on the OPCRF of the school
Key Result Areas

 Broad categories of general outputs or outcomes

 Mandate or function of the office and/ or
individual employee
 Reason why an office and / or job exist
 Area where the office and / or individual
employee are expected to focus on
 Weight Per KRA for SY 2018-2019
TO BE FILLED DURING
MA
JO
KEY OBJECTIVES TO BE FILLED DURING PLANNING EVALUATION ACTUAL RATI SCO
RESULTS NG RE
R RESULT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS  
FIN (QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, TIMELINESS)
AL
AREAS
O
UT Weight
PU EFFICIE
QUALIT TIMELI
T NCY
Y NES

School Objectives in this KRA should not exceed 21%.

21%
Leadership
Basic Education Services

Instructional
Leadership 31%

Human
Resource 16 %
Development
Resource 16 %
Management
School
16 %
Community
Partnership
 Coaching and Mentoring Processes (Brefi)

 Guiding: process of directing an individual or group along the path leading from
present state to desired state
 Coaching: helping another person to improve awareness to set and achieve goals
in order to improve a particular behavioral performance
 Teaching: helping an individual or group develop cognitive skills and capabilities
 Mentoring: helping to shape an individual’s beliefs and values in a positive way,
often a longer term career relationship from someone who has done it before
 Counselling: helping an individual to improve performance by resolving
situations from the past
 Documentations
 Section 37, DO 2., S. 2015
“…rating for planned and/ or intervening tasks shall always be supported by reports, documents or any output as
proofs of actual performance. In the absence of said bases or proofs, a particular task shall not be rated and
shall be disregarded.”

hip

ips
hip

t
en
rs

m e r ce

ag rsh
ers

de

m
lop u

ink rtne
nt

ge
ea
ad

ve eso

es
lL

na
Le

dL a
De an R

Ma

an ity P
a
on
ol

m
ho

rc e
c ti

un
Hu
Sc

tru

sou

mm
Ins

Re

Co
 RPMS Rating Scale
Numerical Adjectival Description of Meaning of Rating
Rating Rating

Performance represents an extraordinary level of achievement and commitment in

terms of quality and time, technical skills and knowledge, ingenuity, creativity and
5 Outstanding initiative. Employees at this performance level should have demonstrated job mastery
in all areas of responsibility. Employee achievement and contributions to the
organization are of marked excellence. (Role Model)

Very Performance exceeded expectations. All goals, objectives and targets were achieved
4
Satisfactory above the established standards. (Consistently Demonstrates)
Performance met expectations in terms of quality of work, efficiency and timeliness.
3 Satisfactory
The most critical annual goals were met. (Most of the time demonstrates)
Performance failed to meet expectations, one or more most critical goal was not met.
2 Unsatisfactory
(Sometimes Demonstrates)

Performance was consistently below expectations, and/or reasonable progress toward

1 Poor critical goals was not made. Significant improvement is needed in one or more important
areas. (Rarely Demonstrates)
 Final Ratings and Equivalent
 4.500 – 5.000 > Outstanding
 3.500 – 4.499 > Very Satisfactory
 2.500 – 3.499 > Satisfactory
 1.500 – 2.499 > Unsatisfactory
 Below 1.499 > Poor

Ratee Rater Approving Authority

School Head (including TIC) ASDS SDS
Master Teacher/ Head Teacher School Head SDS (Medium Division)
Teachers Master/ Head Teacher School Head
School Head Khad Layag, CID Chief
Innovations in MP

Section 60. of DepEd Order No. 2, S. 2015 states that the PMT adopts its own internal rules,
procedures and strategies in carrying out its responsibilities
 Preparation of a School Validation Tool
 Creation of the Technical Validation Group
 One-time submission of OPCRFs
 Centralized evaluation
 Aligning PRAISE with Performance

Section 45, DO 2, S. 2015 – “The average rating of individual

staff members should not go higher than the collective
performance assessment of the office.”
 Average OPCRF Rating SY 2018-2019
4.6

4.51
4.47

4.4 4.37
4.34 4.34
4.3 4.3 4.29
4.26
4.21 4.22
4.2

4.11 4.12
4.1
4.07

3.99 3.99 3.98

4
3.92
3.88
3.85
3.8 3.8
3.8 3.77

3.6

3.4
Barlig Bauko 1 Bauko 2 Besao Bontoc Natonin Paracelis Sabangan Sadanga Sagada Tadian 1 Tadian 2

Elementary Secondary
 Average IPCRF Rating
4.7

4.6 4.58

4.49
4.5
4.45 4.45 4.44 4.44
4.42 4.42
4.4
4.4 4.37
4.35 4.36
4.34 4.34
4.31 4.31
4.3 4.28
4.24 4.234.22
4.2 4.19

4.13
4.1
4.06
4.03

3.9

3.8

3.7
Barlig Bauko 1 Bauko 2 Besao Bontoc Natonin Paracelis Sabangan Sadanga Sagada Tadian 1 Tadian 2

Elementary Secondary
 Average TVG OPCRF Rating
5

4.5 4.37 4.37 4.32 4.36

4.24 4.26 4.25 4.22
4.13 4.12
3.96 4 4.05 3.95
4 3.85 3.83 3.84 3.89 3.86
3.7 3.67 3.73
3.64
3.45
3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Barlig Bauko 1 Bauko 2 Besao Bontoc Natonin Paracelis Sabangan Sadanga Sagada Tadian 1 Tadian 2

Elementary Secondary
 Secondary and Elementary Average School
OPCRF and IPCRF
5

4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Barlig Bauko 1 Bauko 2 Besao Bontoc Natonin Paracelis Sabangan Sadanga Sagada Tadian 1 Tadian 2

Elementary IPCRF Elementary OPCRF Secondary IPCRF Secondary OPCRF

 Comparison of the Average OPCRF SPMT and
6
TVG Rating
5

0
Barlig Bauko 1 Bauko 2 Besao Bontoc Natonin Paracelis Sabangan Sadanga Sagada Tadian 1 Tadian 2

Elementary SPMT Elementary TVG Secondary SPMT Secondary TVG

SY 2018-2019 OPCRF Division Performance
Management Team (PMT) and Technical
Validation Group (TVG) Observation and
Findings and Recommendation
 Findings/ Observations
Computerized stock card
All KRAs are lumped into one
book so MOVs are hard to find in
every KRA
MOVs of one KRA is in the other
folders
Teachers accordingly did not help
in the production of MOVs of the
OPCRF
Accordingly, the validation tool
was not given to the school head
and the SDO is being unfair
Unorganized documents/ files /
MOVs
Actions Taken
 
Reminder: This is the call of the school
head. While teachers help, it should not
be their responsibility but that of the
school head’s.
School head was reprimanded for not
having the initiative to find for the
validation tool
Consideration of documents placed/
used under other KRAs
Recommendations/ Remarks
Stock cards form is computerized but the
person who requests for the item should be
handwritten
Separate folders for each KRA
Make timelines. OPCRF MOVs is not a one
time event. Conduct Phase 1 and let
teachers understand their roles in the
OPCRF. But, the school head should lead
them not just delegate his/her responsibility.
N.B. The validation tool was given during
the conduct of the first phase and unless
she/he did not undergo Phase 1 then she is
really lost
School heads to improve portfolio
preparation and packaging
 Findings/ Observations Actions Taken Recommendations/ Remarks

Teacher came for the validation instead
of the school head / Delegation of the
school heads to teachers, who are
supposed to be on vacation, of their
responsibilities
Informed school head concerned that the The roles of the teachers and the roles of the
packaging of MOVs should be done by the school head should be discussed in a meeting
school heads. The function of the teachers are
to contribute in the realization of the targets of
the OPCRF

Computerized stock card   Stock cards form is computerized but the person
who requests for the item should be handwritten

All KRAs are lumped into one book so   Separate folders for each KRA
MOVs are hard to find in every KRA

MOVs of one KRA is in the other  

folders
Teachers accordingly did not help in the This is the call of the school head. While Make timelines. OPCRF MOVs is not a one time
production of MOVs of the OPCRF teachers help, it should not be their event. Conduct Phase 1 and let teachers
responsibility but that of the school head’s. understand their roles in the OPCRF. But, the
school head should lead them not just delegate
his/her responsibility.
 Findings/ Observations Actions Taken Recommendations/ Remarks

Accordingly, the validation tool was School head was reprimanded for not having N.B. The validation tool was given during the
not given to the school head and the the initiative to find for the validation tool conduct of the first phase and unless she/he did
SDO is being unfair not undergo Phase 1 then she is really lost

Unorganized documents/ files / MOVs Consideration of documents placed/ used School heads to improve portfolio preparation
under other KRAs and packaging
Some school heads still do not know Provided TA on the rationale of the needed School heads to again be oriented on the needed
what documents are needed to support documents for the indicators MOVs for each indicator
the attainment of the indicators

Most school heads have the Explained the need for variety of documents Document all activities always
understanding that one MOV is as MOVs
enough for one indicator
17% of schools OPCRFs validated has Provided TA to concerned school heads Continued TA to school heads to improve
no stock cards and property cards regarding these matters documentation, filing and filling-up of stock and
property cards
most stock cards presented were not
updated
Most school heads are confused on the
issuance forms attached as MOVs

Generally improved packaging of MOVs/ Showcased good packaging For Spot Awards
documents
 Findings/ Observations Actions Taken Recommendations/ Remarks
Accordingly, the validation tool was School head was reprimanded for not N.B. The validation tool was given during the
not given to the school head and the having the initiative to find for the conduct of the first phase and unless she/he did
SDO is being unfair validation tool not undergo Phase 1 then she is really lost
Unorganized documents/ files / Consideration of documents placed/ used School heads to improve portfolio preparation
MOVs under other KRAs and packaging
Some school heads still do not know Provided TA on the rationale of the needed School heads to again be oriented on the
what documents are needed to documents for the indicators needed MOVs for each indicator
support the attainment of the
indicators
Most school heads have the Explained the need for variety of Document all activities always
understanding that one MOV is documents as MOVs
enough for one indicator
17% of schools OPCRFs validated Provided TA to concerned school heads Continued TA to school heads to improve
has no stock cards and property regarding these matters documentation, filing and filling-up of stock
cards and property cards
most stock cards presented were not
updated
Most school heads are confused on
the issuance forms attached as MOVs
 Findings/ Observations Actions Taken Recommendations/ Remarks

Some school heads still do not know Provided TA on the rationale of the needed School heads to again be oriented on the
what documents are needed to documents for the indicators needed MOVs for each indicator
support the attainment of the
indicators
Most school heads have the Explained the need for variety of Document all activities always
understanding that one MOV is documents as MOVs
enough for one indicator
17% of schools OPCRFs validated Provided TA to concerned school heads Continued TA to school heads to improve
has no stock cards and property regarding these matters documentation, filing and filling-up of stock
cards and property cards
most stock cards presented were not
updated
Most school heads are confused on
the issuance forms attached as MOVs

Failures in the accomplishment of the   School Property Custodians should not be

forms related to supply and property changed for at least 3 years so that they will
management is allegedly attributed master their appended duty as property
to the frequent change of School custodian and can mentor the person assigned
Property Custodian to take their place in case they are relieved and
should have a proper turn-over
 Findings/ Observations Actions Taken Recommendations/ Remarks

Some MOVs were missing Lowered the percentage School heads have to be consistent with their
data
Some OPCRFs were not packaged   Package by KRA
according to KRA and objective LAC sessions on documentations plus packaging

Some school heads/ SPMT self-rated or Tolerable range/ difference: .49 and below Tolerable range was signed
rated without really looking into the Considered as wide gap already: .5 to .99 Wide gap of difference – a note was hand written
MOVs present thus this resulted to Made to rate self more realistically: 1 and by the rater for them to work closer with their
very wide gaps between the SPMT above SPMT to really look into their objectives and PIs
rating and the PMT-TVG ratings. vis-à-vis their MOVs
Those with unrealistic SPMT rating were asked
to rate themselves more realistically by re-rating
themselves basing on their present MOVs

No financial reports as of Dec 31 an   Attach year-end FS and FAR

FAR
No PPE inventory report   Prepare as per guideline and make timeline as
this is due every December
No proper financial reporting of SEF,   Financial report is prepared for all fund sources
PTA and IGP (in kind or cash)
Generally improved packaging of MOVs/ Showcased good packaging For Spot Awards
documents
 Findings/ Observations Actions Taken Recommendations/ Remarks
2 SLACs per month is mostly not Considered trainings Include trainings not only SLACs
met at the school heads
HRD plan comes in different Considered the plan as long as gap is TA was given on how to do the plan –
format presented giving of time table
HRD plan is absent in some schools Rated 4 as its highest  
Most school heads do not have IPDP Gave deductions TA given
Absence of PRAISE guidelines – Gave deductions TA given
program of activities
How many transmittals/ per kind are Considered same – kind as 1 TA given
to be considered
Some schools do not do the RSP Followed the PIs and gave deductions TA given
processes
Each school OPCRF showed unique Appreciate them all Continue looking forward
and diverse packaging of content and
status
Generally improved packaging of Showcased good packaging For Spot Awards
MOVs/ documents
Parameters for SY 2018-19 OPCRF:
Internal DepEd-MP Guidelines
 Weight of Plus Factor will be added one (1) point each to the different KRAs. Plus Factor
then will be in any of the KRAs but which will not exceed 10% of the whole weighted
rating of the KRA. Plus factor may also capture the uniqueness of the school (i.e. SEF
utilization, SBFP implementation).
 Objectives per KRA should not be lower than 3.
 Parameters for SY 2018-19 OPCRF:
Internal DepEd-MP Guidelines
KRA Weighted Rate 10%
 Others/ Plus Factors – Points are included in School 20%+1%= 21% 2.1%
the Regular KRAs since Others/ Plus Factors Leadership
are usually related with the KRAs. The Instructional 30% +1% = 3.1%
Leadership 31%
objective on others in that KRA though should
Human Resource 15% + 1%= 1.6%
not exceed 10% of the weight of the objectives Dev’t 16%
in that KRA. Resource 15% + 1%= 1.6%
Management 16%
 If there are no plus factor objectives, then just
Community 15% + 1%= 1.6%
add the Human
extra point to Development
Resource any of the regular
(16%) Partnership and 16%
objectives.
With Plus Factor Without Plus Factor Linkages
Objective 1 – 5% Objective 1 – 5% Plus Factor will now be not more 10%
Objective 2 – 2.4% Objective 2 – 3.5% than 10% of the whole
Objective 3 – 4% Objective 3 – 4%
Objective 4 – 3% Objective 4 – 3.5%
Plus Factor – 1.6%
Parameters for SY 2018-19 OPCRF:
Internal DepEd-MP Guidelines
 Full-time TICs will prepare OPCRFs; TICs with subject loads will replace Instructional
Supervision with Teacher IPCRF KRAs
 Full-time teachers as well as TICs will prepare an OPCRF interfaced with Teacher /Master
Teacher IPCRF
 Outstanding School OPCRFs (for validation)
 School must have joined Searches for Best Employee or Organizations in the Division, Regional
and National Levels
 School must have joined and won in co and extra-curricular activities
 Average IPCRF ratings should not be lower than .30 point from the OPCRF rating
OPCRF Objectives
 There are MUST objectives which all schools should include:
 School Leadership – 6 objectives
 Instructional Leadership – 3 objectives
 Human Resource Development – 3 objectives
 Resource Management – 3 objectives
 Partnership and Linkages – 3 objectives
 There are objectives which are only applicable to some schools but not to all. These must be included by concerned
schools like those who are offering Senior High School, Techvoc, Special Science, Special Program in Journalism,
SPEd
 There are schools / school heads that are able to do more than expected. These should be reflected in the PLUS
FACTORS under each KRA. The determination of the KRA to which it should be included is dependent on what it is.
 Though we came up with standards which is true to all schools, the OPCRF will still capture the school’s uniqueness
in the added objectives
Other Things To Consider

 Front page of the OPCRF will contain the commitment of the school head, rater and ratee
and these statements shall be placed in between the basic information and the OPCRF
itself
Name of Employee: __________ Name of Rater: ______________
Position: _____________ Position: _________________
School: ______________ Division: _________________
Rating Period: ___________ Date of Review: _________
(I will send the content of the commitment within the day, through this platform. It shall
be placed here to be signed by the ratee, rater and approving authority.)
SCHEDULE OF RPMS PHASE 1 FOR SCHOOL HEADS
Activities
Online Discussion and Posting of
Instructions and Guidelines Through
Workplace
Preparation of School OPCRFs
Submission of School OPCRFs for Review
by the Division PMT
Review by the PMT-TVG of OPCRFs
Incorporation of corrections and revisions
OPCRF Commitment Signing
Schedule/ Timeline
August 14 and 15 at 8:00 to
10:00 AM
August 13-23, 2019
On or before August 27,
2019
As soon as OPCRFs are
submitted
As soon as OPCRF is
returned
As soon as deemed ok by
the PMT-TVG
Remarks
Hard copies will also be given to the
PSDS for dissemination
To be done by the school heads in
partnership with the school staff
The earlier, the better
If there are major corrections, the
OPCRF will be returned for corrections
Should be given back to the DO for
signing
This will be used by the DO and the
school heads in rating the SH in Phase 3
References

 DepEd Order No. 2, S. 2015

 CSC Memorandum Circular No. 6, S. 2012 : Establishment and Implementation of the
Strategic Performance Management System of All Government Agencies
 DepEd Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (2017). Research Center for Teacher
Quality. Teacher Education Council
 DepEd Bureau of Human Resource and Organizational Development. Results-Based
Performance Management System Manual for Teachers and School Heads. Basic
Education Sector Transformation
 Brefi Group. www.brefigroup.co.uk
 Summary of the Strengths and Challenges of DepEd MP as taken from School Heads Part
IV Development Plans