This document contains a performance review of Christine D. David by Pepito C. Celestino for her work as a Teacher I from May 2015 to March 2016. It evaluates her performance on 5 key result areas (KRAs) based on objectives, performance indicators, actual results, and ratings. Each KRA is assigned a weight and she receives a score for each based on her level of accomplishment of the objectives as Outstanding, Very Satisfactory, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory, or Poor. Her overall rating is calculated by multiplying her ratings by the assigned weights for each KRA.
Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...
Employee Performance Review and Rating Form
1. Name of Employee: CHRISTINE D. DAVID Name of Rater: PEPITO C. CELESTINO
Position: TEACHER I Position: HT III
ReviewPeriod: MAY 2015 – MARCH 2016 Date of Review:
Bureau/Center/Service/Division: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MFOs KRAs OBJECTIVES TIMELINE WEIGHT per
KRA
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS(Quality, Efficiency,
Timelessness)
ACTUAL
RESULTS
RATINGS SCORE
I – TEACHING –
LEARNING PROCESS
1. Prepare dailylessonlogsof
activitiesincludingappropriate
and adequate andupdated
instructional materials.
2. Facilitate learninginsecondary
schoolsthroughfunctional daily
logsand innovative teaching
strategies.
June,
2015-
March
2016
10%
10%
5 – Outstanding
Attained130% and above of
the desiredlearning
competencies.
4 – Very Satisfactory
Attained115 - 129% of the
desiredlearningcompetencies
3 – Satisfactory
Attained100 – 114% of the
desiredlearningcompetencies.
2 – Unsatisfactory
Attained51 – 99% of the
desiredlearningcompetencies.
1 – Poor
50% andbelowof the desired
learningcompetencies.
5 – Outstanding
The goal reflectedarange of
studentlearnerneeds.
4 – Very Satisfactory
The teacherexplainedthe
importance of the goal and its
Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form
2. 3. Initiate disciplineof students
includingclassroomrules,
guidelinesandindividual and
grouptasks.
10%
appropriatenesstostudents
3 – Satisfactory
The teacherclearly
communicatedafocusfor
studentlearning
2 – Unsatisfactory
The teacherdidnot have a
clearfocus forstudentlearning
1 – Poor
The objective isinappropriate
for students.
5 – Outstanding
Learnerswere 130% and above
guidedinthe observationof
classroomrulesandguidelines
as evidencedbydescriptive
ratingin the reportcard.
4 – Very Satisfactory
Learnerswere 115 – 129%
guidedinthe observationof
classroomrulesandguidelines
as evidencedbydescriptive
ratingin the reportcard.
3- Satisfactory
Learnerswere 100 – 114%
guidedinthe observationof
classroomrulesandguidelines
as evidencedbydescriptive
ratingin the reportcard.
2 – Unsatisfactory
Learnerswere 51 – 99% guided
inthe observationof classroom
rulesandguidelinesas
evidencedbydescriptive rating
inthe reportcard.
3. II – STUDENTS
DEVELOPMENT 1.Monitor,evaluate andmaintain
students’ progress
2. Maintainupdatedstudents’
school records.
June,
2015-
March
2016
10%
10%
1 – Poor
Learnerswere notguidedin
the observationof classroom
rulesandguidelines as
evidencedbydescriptive rating
inthe reportcard.
5 – Outstanding
Classrecord reflectedthe bases
of 130% andabove of learners’
ratingsinall classes/subject
areas handled.
4 – Very Satisfactory
Classrecord reflectedthe bases
of 115 – 129% learners’ratings
inall classes/subjectareas
handled.
3-Satisfactory
Classrecord reflectedthe bases
of 100-114% of learners’
ratingsinall classes/subject
areas handled.
2 – Unsatisfactory
Classrecord reflectedthe bases
of 51 – 99% of learners’ratings
inall classes/subjectareas
handled.
1 – Poor
Classrecord reflectedthe bases
of 50% and belowof learners’
ratingsinall classes/subject
areas handled.
5 – Outstanding
Students’ school recordswere
130% and above systematically
9. documentedresults.
1 – Poor
No participationinschool
activities.
OVERALL
RATING FOR
ACCOMPLI -
SHMENTS
To get the score,the rating is multipliedbythe weightassigned
_______________________________________________ _________________________________________
Rater Ratee