DepEd Order No.2, s.

2015
Guidelines on the Establishment &
Implementation of the Results - based
Performance Management System
(RPMS) in the Department of Education

Lead, Engage, Align & Do! (LEAD)

 Policy Statement
• The DepEd hereby sets the guidelines on the
establishment and implementation of the
RPMS in the department stipulating the
strategies, methods, tools and rewards for
assessing the accomplishment vis-à-vis the
commitments. This will be used for measuring
and rewarding higher levels of performance of
the various units and development planning
of all personnel in all levels.
 Policy Statement
• For non-school based personnel, the
RPMS shall provide for an objective and
verifiable basis for rating and ranking the
performance of units and individual
personnel in view of the granting of
Performance-Based Bonus(PBB) starting
2015.
 Policy Statement
• For school-based personnel, the RPMS shall
be used only as an appraisal tool, which shall
be the basis for training and development.
The granting of PBB shall be governed by the
existing PBB guidelines.
• The Department shall adopt the RPMS
Framework
 VISION, MISSION,
WHAT VALUES (VMV)
HOW
Strategic Values
Priorities

Department/ CENTRAL
Functional
Area Goals REGIONAL Competencies

DIVISION
KRAs and
Objectives
SCHOOLS

DEPED RPMS FRAMEWORK

The framework aligns efforts to enable DepEd to actualize its strategic

goals and vision.
 Policy Statement

• The DepEd RPMS shall follow the

four-stage performance
management system cycle as
prescribed by the CSC
 Phase 1
Performance Planning
and Commitment
1. Discuss Unit’s Objectives

2. Identify Individual KRAs, Objectives

and Performance Indicators

3. Discuss Competencies Required and

Additional Competencies Needed

4. Reaching Agreement
 CATEGORY DEFINITION
Effectiveness/Quality The extent to which actual performance
compares with targeted performance.
The degree to which objectives are
achieved and the extent to which
targeted problems are solved.
In management, effectiveness relates to
getting the right things done.
Efficiency The extent to which time or resources is
used for the intended task or purpose.
Measure whether targets are
accomplished with a minimum amount
or quantity of waste, expense or
unnecessary effort.
 Category Definition
Timeliness Measures whether the deliverable was
done on time based on the requirements
of the rules and regulations, and /or
clients/stakeholders.
Time-related performance indicators
evaluate such things as project
completion deadlines, time management
skills and other time- sensitive
expectations
 Phase 2
Performance Monitoring and
Coaching
 1. Performance Tracking

2. Coaching/Feedback

Heart of the RPMS

 Phase 3
Performance Review and
Evaluation
1. 1.
Review Performance
Reviewing Performance

2. Discuss Strengths and

Improvement Needs
 The RPMS Rating Scale

Scale Adjectival Description

Performance represents an extraordinary level of achievement and
commitment in terms of quality and time , technical skills and
Outstanding knowledge, ingenuity, creativity and initiative. Employees at this
5
performance level should have demonstrated exceptional job mastery
in all major areas of responsibility. Employee achievement and
contributions to the organization are of marked excellence.
Performance exceeded expectation. All goals, objectives, and targets
4 Very Satisfactory were achieved above the established standards.

Satisfactory Performance met expectations in terms of quality of work, efficiency

3
and timeliness. The most critical annual goals were met.
Unsatisfactory Performance failed to meet expectations, and/or one or more of the
2
most critical goals were not met.
Performance was consistently below expectations, and/or reasonable
Poor
1 progress toward critical goals was not made. Significant improvement
is needed in one or more important areas.
 Sample Computation
KRA’s Weight Per Objectives Weight Per Rating Score
KRA Objectives
KRA 1 40 Objective 1 10% 4 0.400
Objective 2 20% 5 1.000
Objective 3 10% 3 0.300

KRA 2 20 Objective 1 10% 3 0.300

Objective 2 5% 3 0.150
Objective 3 5% 4 0.200
 Sample Computation
KRA’s Weight Per Objectives Weight Per Rating Score
KRA Objectives
KRA 3 30 Objective 1 10% 4 0.400
Objective 2 15% 3 0.450
Objective 3 5% 3 0.150

KRA 4 10 Objective 1 5% 3 0.150

Objective 2 2.50% 3 0.075
Objective 3 2.50% 4 0.100
Plus Factor
Final Rating 3.675
 Adjectival Ratings
RANGE ADJECTIVAL RATING
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
 *DepEd’s Competencies Scale
Scale Definition
5 Role model
4 Consistently demonstrates
Most of the time
3
demonstrates
2 Sometimes demonstrates
1 Rarely demonstrates

5 (role model) - all competency indicators

4 (consistently demonstrates) – four competency indicators
3 (most of the time demonstrates) – three competency indicators
2 (sometimes demonstrates) – two competency indicators
1 (rarely demonstrates) – one competence indicator

*will be used for developmental purposes

 Phase 4
Performance Rewarding and
Development Planning
1. Rewards

2. Development Planning
 RPMS Cycle
For School-Based Personnel

Performance Mid-Year Review Year-End Results

Planning
Phase II Phases III & IV
Phase I November April
May
 RPMS Cycle
For non School-Based Personnel

Performance Mid-Year Review Year-End Results

Planning
Phase II Phases III & IV
Phase I July
December
December
 Composition of Performance
Management Team
Division PMT School PMT
Chair: ASDS (most senior in terms of Chair: Principal-elect
tenure as ASDS

Members: Members:

• Planning Officer III * Four(4) Master Teacher/Head Teacher

• Accountant III * One(1) representative from the School
*Chief Administrative Officer V Planning Team
• One(1) Education Program Supervisor * One(1) Administrative
• One(1) Principals’ Representative Officer/Representative from non-teaching
(Elementary : PESPA) group
• One(1) Principals’ Representative
(Secondary : NAPPSSHI, NAPPSSPHIL
• One(1) representative from the
teacher association for elementary
 Composition of• Performance
Division PMT
• One(1) NEU-Division Chapter
School PMT
One(1) representative from the
Management Team
Representative teacher association

Observer: Observer:
One(1) PTA Division Federation One(1) PTA Representative
Representative

Secretariat: Secretariat:
Administrative Office Administrative Office
 Composition of the Grievance
Committee
Schools Division Office Schools
Chair: SDS Chair: ASDS

Members: Members:
Legal Officer PSDS
HRMO HRMO/AO
EPS Principal
Accountant Master Teacher/Head Teacher
PESPA representative Teachers Association
NEU
 RATEE RATER
Schools Division Office
1. Superintendent 1. Asst. Regional Director
2. Asst. Superintendent 2. Superintendent
3. Chief of Division 3. Asst. Superintendent
4. Education Program 4. Chief of Division
Supervisor
5. District Supervisor 5. Chief of Division
6. Section Chief/Unit Head 6. Chief of Division
7. Staff 7. Section Chief/Unit
Head
APPROVING AUTHORITY
1. Regional Director
2. Asst. Director
3. Superintendent
4. Asst. Superintendent
5. Asst. Superintendent
6. Asst. Superintendent
7. Head of Division
 RATEE RATER APPROVING AUTHORITY
Schools
1. Principal 1. Asst. Superintendent 1. Superintendent
2. Head/Master Teacher 2. Principal 2. Superintendent (Small
& Medium Divisions)
Asst. Superintendent(Large
& Very Large Divisions)

3. Teacher 3. Head/Master Teacher 3. Principal

4. Non -Teaching Staff 4. Principal 4. Administrative Officer V
Key Changes in the Guidelines
CSC’s Revised Policies on the Strategic Performance Management
System (SPMS)
MC 6 s. 2012
NUMERICAL ADJECTIVAL
DESCRIPTION OF MEANING OF RATING
RATING RATING
5 Outstanding Performance represents an extraordinary level of achievement and
commitment in terms of quality and time, technical skills and
knowledge, ingenuity, creativity and initiative. Employees at this
performance level should have demonstrated exceptional job
mastery in all major areas of responsibility. Employee
achievement and contributions to the organization are of marked
excellence.
4 Very Satisfactory Performance exceeded expectations. All goals, objectives and
targets were achieved above the established standards.
3 Satisfactory Performance met expectations in terms of quality of work,
efficiency and timeliness. The most critical annual goals were met.
2 Unsatisfactory Performance failed to meet expectations, and/or one or more of
the most critical goals were not met.
1 Poor Performance was consistently below expectations, and/or
reasonable progress toward critical goals was not made.
Significant improvement is needed in one or more important areas.

From 130% to 100% Outstanding Rating

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
DETERMINING THE OVERALL RATING FOR
ACCOMPLISHMENTS

RANGE ADJECTIVAL RATING

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

 COMPUTING THE SCORE PER KRA

The score per KRA shall be computed using the

following formula:

Rating per KRA = Weight x Rating

Total/Final Rating = KRA1 + KRA2 + KRA3 +

KRA 4 (Plus Factor)
 OTHER CHANGES

Rationale Maintained
Scope of Policy Maintained
Definition of Terms and Enhanced
Acronyms
Policy Statement Maintained
Performance Cycle Process Maintained
Uses of Performance Ratings Changed from 130% to 100%
Monitoring and Evaluation Maintained
Repealing Clause Changed (PMT & Grievance,
Disqualification, Sanction)
Forms Changed
Effectivity Moved to 2015
 Guidelines approved by CSC on
December 2014.

DepEd Department Order No. 2, series of

2015 signed February 6, 2015.

For 2014, the agency will still use PASAG to evaluate

performance.

RPMS will be used in 2015 and will be linked to PBB,

payout in 2016.
 “Behind every
successful person,
there is one
elementary truth.
Somewhere,
someway,
someone cared about
their growth and
development.”

- Donald Miller, UK Mentoring

Programme