RPMS

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

The framework aligns efforts to enable DepEd to actualize its strategic goals and vision.

VISION, MISSION, VALUES (VMV)

Strategic Priorities

Department/ Functional Area Goals

KRAs and Objectives

Values

CENTRAL

REGIONAL

DIVISION

SCHOOLS

DEPED RPMS FRAMEWORK

Competencies

WHAT HOW

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 2Performance Monitoring and

Coaching

1. Performance Tracking

2. Coaching/Feedback

Heart of the RPMS

Phase 3 Performance Review and

Evaluation

1. Reviewing Performance1. Review Performance

2. Discuss Strengths and Improvement Needs

The RPMS Rating Scale

Scale Adjectival Description

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 SatisfactoryPerformance exceeded expectation. 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.

Sample ComputationKRA’s Weight Per

KRAObjectives Weight Per

ObjectivesRating Score

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


Sample ComputationKRA’s Weight Per

KRAObjectives Weight Per

ObjectivesRating Score

KRA 3 30 Objective 1 10% 4 0.400

Objective 2 15% 3 0.450


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 RatingsRANGE 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 ScaleScale Definition

5 Role model

4 Consistently demonstrates

3Most of the time

demonstrates

2 Sometimes demonstrates

1 Rarely demonstrates

5 (role model) - all competency indicators4 (consistently demonstrates) – four competency indicators3 (most of the time demonstrates) – three competency indicators2 (sometimes demonstrates) – two competency indicators1 (rarely demonstrates) – one competence indicator

*will be used for developmental purposes

Phase 4 Performance Rewarding and

Development Planning

1. Rewards

2. Development Planning

Performance Planning

• Phase I• May

Mid-Year Review

• Phase II• November

Year-End Results

• Phases III & IV• April

RPMS Cycle For School-Based Personnel

Performance Planning

• Phase I• December

Mid-Year Review

• Phase II• July

Year-End Results

Phases III & IVDecember

RPMS CycleFor non School-Based Personnel

Composition of Performance Management Team

Division PMT School PMT

Chair: ASDS (most senior in terms of tenure as ASDS

Members:

• Planning Officer III • Accountant III * Chief Administrative Officer V• One(1) Education Program Supervisor• One(1) Principals’ Representative

(Elementary : PESPA)• One(1) Principals’ Representative

(Secondary : NAPPSSHI, NAPPSSPHIL• One(1) representative from the

teacher association for elementary

Chair: Principal-elect

Members:

* Four(4) Master Teacher/Head Teacher* One(1) representative from the School Planning Team * One(1) Administrative Officer/Representative from non-teaching group

Composition of Performance Management Team

Division PMT School PMT

• One(1) NEU-Division Chapter Representative

Observer:One(1) PTA Division Federation Representative

Secretariat:Administrative Office

• One(1) representative from the teacher association

Observer:One(1) PTA Representative

Secretariat:Administrative Office

Composition of the Grievance Committee

Schools Division Office Schools

Chair: SDS

Members:Legal OfficerHRMOEPSAccountantPESPA representativeNEU

Chair: ASDS

Members:PSDSHRMO/AOPrincipalMaster Teacher/Head TeacherTeachers Association

RATEE RATER APPROVING AUTHORITY

Schools Division Office

1. Superintendent2. Asst. Superintendent3. Chief of Division4. Education Program Supervisor5. District Supervisor6. Section Chief/Unit Head7. Staff

1. Asst. Regional Director2. Superintendent3. Asst. Superintendent4. Chief of Division

5. Chief of Division6. Chief of Division7. Section Chief/Unit

Head

1. Regional Director2. Asst. Director3. Superintendent4. Asst. Superintendent

5. Asst. Superintendent6. Asst. Superintendent7. Head of Division

RATEE RATER APPROVING AUTHORITY

Schools

1. Principal2. Head/Master Teacher

3. Teacher4. Non -Teaching Staff

1. Asst. Superintendent2. Principal

3. Head/Master Teacher4. Principal

1. Superintendent2. Superintendent (Small

& Medium Divisions)Asst. Superintendent(Large & Very Large Divisions)

3. Principal4. Administrative Officer V

Key Changes in the Guidelines

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

CSC’s Revised Policies on the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS)MC 6 s. 2012

NUMERICAL RATING

ADJECTIVAL RATING

DESCRIPTION OF MEANING OF 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

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 Acronyms

Enhanced

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