Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Abstract—This descriptive research is about the performance
of Elementary School Teachers in Diliman Elementary School
in San Rafael Bulacan. Using a secondary data on the actual
results of Competency-Based Performance Appraisal System
(CBPAST) and the Individual Performance Commitment
Review (IPCR) performance assessment tool which are both
government prescribed forms/tools for public school teachers in
the Philippines, the researcher will show a five-year trajectory
report (from 2013-2018) on the actual performance of
elementary school teachers. Findings revealed that the public
school elementary teachers generally yielded a “Very
Satisfactory” rating in CBPAST and IPCR during the five year
period. Since the two instruments (i.e. CBPAST and IPCR) are
both self-assessment tools, it is recommended that a more
subjective performance assessment tool be utilized like those
that involves participation of the students and the immediate
superior of the concerned public school teachers.
Index Terms—Elementary teachers, performance, public
school.
I. INTRODUCTION
Great attention and consideration have always been given
to the professional development of teachers throughout the
history of education. Teachers play a vital role in the
realization of the goals and objectives of a country’s
educational system. “The teacher is the indispensable
element in the school” (Beerens, 2000) [1].
Alvior (2014) [2] posits that pressures are created among
educators to prepare students such that they will possess a
wide range of skills, content knowledge, and practical
experiences needed to survive in this highly competitive
world. This, according to Alvior, is based on the result of
today’s knowledge-based economy and the rapid explosion
of networked communications across the globe.
In the Philippines, according to Lapus (2008) [3] the
Department of Education has recognized the importance of
acquiring the 21st century skills through the integration of
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the
educational process. Despite economic difficulties and
budget deficit, the government through the Department of
Education (DepEd) continues to invest in teacher
professional development across the country. The obvious
reason is to improve educational standards to compete in
globalized knowledge economy. The recent passing of the
Republic Act 10912, [4] otherwise known as the “Continuing
Professional Development (CPD) Act of 2016, which
mandates professionals (including teachers) to obtain the
necessary CPD units as prescribed by their respective
Professional Regulatory Board (PRB) to renew their
Professional Identification Card (PIC), shows the emphasis
being given to professional development.
However, the study of Maligalig and Albert (2008) [5]
showed that the contributing factor for low quality basic
education in the country is the lack of competent teachers.
This result is in consonance to the reforms stipulated in the
Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA)
particularly in the Key Reform Thrust 2 that there is a need to
improve the classroom performance of English, Mathematics,
and Science teachers for better learning outcomes (Alvior,
2014).While considerable amounts of money have been
spent by the government, private educational institutions, and
individual teachers on professional development, researches
have little evidence of its impact on teachers’ professional
practice. Similarly, there is little evidence that exists
regarding its effect on pupils’ outcomes (O’Sullivan, 2011;
King, 2011) [6].
For the Filipino teachers, Individual Performance
Commitment Review Form (IPCRF) was introduced to
DepEd 2015. It is a general plan of task and serves as guide
to teachers to be written before the start of classes,
implemented before the school year and to be rated at the end
of the school year. This is a tool to evaluate performance. As
stated in DepEd Order 2, S. 2015 [7] - Guidelines on the
Establishment and Implementation of the Results-Based
Performance Management System (RPMS) in the
Department of Education (DepEd), it aims to provide
comprehensive guidelines for the adoption of the Civil
Service Commission’s (CSC) Strategic Performance
Management System (SPMS) in DepEd. According to
Canoma (2017) [8], the objectives indicated are actually the
duties and responsibilities that each teacher must do in
service. This is a tool to check and balance if one is doing his
duties diligently with quality, efficiency and on time.
Prior to this, Competency-Based Performance Appraisal
System for Teachers (CB_PAST) was used as the
performance evaluation tool in connection with professional
development. CB-PAST is a comprehensive appraisal
system which addresses one of the mandates of the
Department as embodied in the RA 9155 [9] (An Act
Instituting A Framework of Governance for Basic Education,
Establishing Authority and Accountability, Renaming The
Department of Education, Culture And Sports as the
Department Of Education, and For Other Purposes). The first
purpose is formative-developmental in nature which will
Assessing Elementary School Teachers’ Performance
Using CBPAST and IPCR: A Five Year Trajectory Report
Cecilia Junio-Sabio and Monaliza M. Manalo
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 10, No. 2, February 2020
154
doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2020.10.2.1355
Manuscript received June 30, 2019; revised December 15, 2019.
Cecilia Junio-Sabio is with Graduate School, De La Salle Araneta
University and University of the City of Manila, Philippines (e-mail:
vpcfjs@gmail.com).
Monaliza M. Manalo is with Diliman Elementary School, Philippines
(e-mail: monalizammanalo27@gmail.com).
provide teachers with meaningful activities that encourage
their professional learning and growth. The procedure will be
supportive, non-threatening, fair, collegial and self-directed
within the community of professional learners. The second
purpose is summative-evaluative which will assure that
school learners have the benefit of instruction at high level of
proficiency from the teachers. Appraisal of teacher
performance is made on the basis of the evidences collected,
observations made, conferences, and dialogues that
accompany each procedure. The ultimate intention of the
performance appraisal is achieving high levels of learners’
performance and improved learning outcomes as part of the
school outcomes.
II. OBJECTIVE
This research attempted to determine the performance of
elementary school teachers using CBPAST and IPCR
performance assessment tool. A five year trajectory report
(from 2013-2018) will be presented to document how the
teacher’s fare in their performance using the 2 instruments.
The goal is to somewhat help improve teacher performance
through proposed professional development activities
(should the result will prove to be low) which is ultimately
aimed at enhancing pupil/student learning outcomes and
foster school improvement. Specifically, this research sought
answer to the following:
1) What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:
a) age;
b) ex;
c) designation;
d) highest level of formal education completed;
e) length of service in teaching;
f) length of service in Diliman Elementary School?
2) How do the teachers fare in their performance for the past
five years using CBPAST and IPCR?
III. THE SUBJECT
Fig. 1. Diliman elementary school (DES) organizational chart.
This research is set in the context of schools continuing
effort to invest in teacher professional development (PD) to
enhance educational standards and teachers’ performance.
The Dilliman Elementary School (which is the subjects of
this research) is a government school located in San Rafael,
Bulacan and is operating under the supervision of the
Department of Education. Currently, the school operates
with a total of 17 teachers (including the Principal) with an
average number of 32 students per section from grade 1 to
grade 6. Each grade level (grade 1 to 6) has 2 sections. Only
the kinder level has 3 sections with an average of 27 students
per section.
Fig. 1 shows the organizational structure of Diliman
Elementary School.
IV. METHOD
Descriptive quantitative method was used in this study.
Descriptive quantitative as it gathers quantifiable information
that can be used for statistical inference on the target
audience through data analysis; a method to reveal and
measure the strength of a target group’s opinion, attitude, or
behavior with regards to a given subject. It described
characteristics of the population being studied and was used
for frequencies and averages of the characteristics which
occurred. The description is used and other statistical
calculations. Secondary data on the CBPAST and IPCR were
used to get the trajectory report for the past five years
(2013-2018).
The teachers of Diliman Elementary School for the
academic year 2018-2019 comprising of 15 members,
excluding the principal and one of the researcher, were the
respondents of the study. The goal of this research is to
provide quantitative description and an in-depth detail, rich
description, and clear documentation of DES teachers’
profile and performance.
The first part of the data gathering instrument that was
used in this research basically drew the baseline information
about the Elementary School teacher’s profile. Part II dealt
with the participants’ actual performance evaluation result
which were drawn from the Individual Performance
Commitment Review (IPCR) and the Competency-Based
Performance Appraisal System for Teachers (CB_PAST).
IPCR is an assessment tool for government employees’ use
that will rate task accomplished for a year. It is composed of
Key Result Areas (KRAs) which dwells on Instructional
competence, Learning Outcomes, Professional Growth,
Community Involvement and the Special Task which should
have at least 15 objectives with corresponding timeline and
weight. In order to determine the score obtained, there are
performance indicators which shows how the objective were
performed with ratings: 5-Outstanding, 4-Very Satisfactory,
3-Satisfactory, 2-Unsatisfactory and 1-Poor Performance.
The rating scale is based on the Civil Service Commission
Memorandum Circular No. 06, series of 2012 [10] that sets
the guidelines on the establishment and implementation of
the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) in
all government agencies is interpreted in Table I below:
CB_PAST on the other hand is divided into two parts. Part
I constitutes the Components and Performance Standards
which include (I) Instructional Competence taking into
considerations the (A) Diversity of Learners, (B) Curriculum
Content and Pedagogy, (C) Planning, Assessing and
Reporting; (II) Home, School and Community Involvement
which accounts for (D) Learning Environment and (E)
Community Linkages; and (III)Personal Growth and
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 10, No. 2, February 2020
155
Professional Development evaluating the (F) Social Regard
for Learning, and (G) Personal, Social Growth and
Professional Development. Part II constitutes the Plus Factor
for the same components and performance standards
mentioned in Part I. There are different statements under
each given indicators and the teacher will rate accordingly
from an index of 1 to 4 described as (1) Below Basic, (2)
Basic, (3) Proficient, and (4) Highly Proficient interpreted as
shown in Table II.
TABLE II: TEACHER PERFORMANCE INDEX
3.51– 4.00
Highly Proficient. Teacher performance consistently
exceeds expectations. Displays at all time, a consistently
high level of performance related skills, abilities,
attributes, initiatives and productivity. All
assignments/responsibilities are completed beyond the
level of expectation. Self-direction of the teacher is
evident.
2.51– 3.50
Proficient. Teacher performance often exceeds
expectations. Displays a high level of competency related
skills, abilities, initiatives and productivity, exceeding
requirements in many of the areas.
1.51– 2.50
Basic. Teacher performance meets basic expectations
based on standards. Displays basic level of work and
performance outputs as required outcomes or
expectations of the job.
1.00– 1.50
Below Basic. Teacher performance on the job and
outputs frequently fall below standards. Work outputs
consistently low, regularly fails to meet required
outcomes needing repetition of duty or by completion of
others. The teacher may need immediate instructional
support.
Note: Overall performance is computed by adding the Formative
Performance Rating (Sum of the Total Weighted Average of I, II and III) and
Plus Factor (for the Summative Appraisal) which totaled to Summative
Performance Rating.
Table III shows the Rating Scale and Interpretation for
Competency-Based Performance Appraisal System for
Teachers )CB_PAST)
TABLE III: COMPETENCY-BASED PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM FOR
TEACHERS (CB_PAST) RATING SCALE AND INTERPRETATION
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1) The profile of the teacher-respondents are as follows:
a) In terms of Age. Highest percentage (88%) of the
respondents belonged to the middle age (26 - 45 years
old), while lower percentage (6.67%) of them belonged
to the older adulthood (56 – 60 years old).
The findings show that professional development for
teachers should be analogous to professional development
for other professionals regardless of age. It is a continuous
process that stretches from pre-service experiences in
undergraduate years to the end of a professional career. This
is supported by what Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2005 states that
effective professional development is on-going.
b) In terms of Gender/Sex. 13 percent of the respondents
were males while 87 percent of them were females.
The findings reveal that implementing high quality
professional learning is critical to teacher effectiveness in
meeting students’ needs but there is no one fits all approach,
differences in communities of teachers uniquely affect
professional development.
c) 1.3. In terms of Designation. Teacher 1 ranked 1 with
the highest percentage (60%), while lowest percentage
(6.67%) was Master Teacher 1.
The data can be analyzed in the light of the speech
delivered by Representatives Tinio and Castro of ACT
Teachers Party-list, that teachers’ career advancement is
hindered by the sluggish processing of promotion in DepEd,
the imposition of numerous requirements, and certain
limitations such as the scarcity of plantilla items for higher
positions and the setting of ratios between teaching items.
d) 1.4. In terms of Highest level of formal education
completed. Highest percentage (86.67%) of the
respondents were holders of college degree while the
lowest percentage (13.33%) were holders of Master’s
degree.
Thus, Sec. Briones of the Department of Education called
the teachers to take new and exciting paths, know and love
the country more, discover things never known before, and
learn skills they never had before.
e) 1.5. Length of service in teaching. 46.67 percent of the
respondents taught for not less than 5 years, while 6.67
percent had been teaching for not less than 30 years.
The remaining percent 46.67 percent belonged from 6
– 25 number of years in service.
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 10, No. 2, February 2020
156
TABLE I: INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT REVIEW (IPCR)
RATING SCALE AND INTERPRETATION
What makes the novice and expert teachers different is
their background teaching experiences. There is an Arabic
proverb which goes like experience is superior to knowledge.
f) 1.6. Length of service in Diliman Elementary School
(DES). Highest percentage (73.33%) have been
teaching in DES for not less than 5 years. 13.33%
taught in DES between 6 -10 years, 6.67% between
11 – 15 years and 6.67% between 16-20 years.
2) Elementary School Teachers Performance using
CB_PAST and IPCR
TABLE IV: OVER-ALL RATING THRU COMPETENCY-BASED PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL SYSTEM FOR TEACHERS (CB_PAST) AND PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION RESULTS (IPCR) FOR 5-YEAR PERIOD
AVS 3.07 VS 3.07 VS 4.28 VS 4.45 O 4.5 3.87
BVS 3.07 VS 2.98 VS 4.47 VS 4.47 O 4.52 3.9
CVS 2.73 VS 2.98 VS 4.49 VS 4.46 VS 4.49 3.83
DVS 2.98 VS 2.98 VS 4.32 VS 4.4 VS 4.48 3.83
EVS 2.98 VS 2.65 O 4.5 VS 4.48 O 4.51 3.82
FVS 2.65 VS 2.74 VS 4.46 VS 4.44 VS 4.49 3.76
GVS 2.7 VS 4.3 VS 4.38 VS 4.48 3.97
HVS 2.65 VS 4.43 VS 4.48 VS 4.49 4.01
IVS 2.74 VS 4.4 VS 4.45 VS 4.48 4.02
JVS 2.98 VS 4.36 VS 4.41 VS 4.49 4.06
KVS 4.41 VS 4.44 0 4.57 4.47
LVS 4.44 VS 4.48 4.46
MVS 4.4 4.4
NVS 4.48 4.48
Mean 2.91 2.85 4.4 4.44 4.49 3.82
VS VS VS VS VS VS
Interpretation
2017-
2018
Rating
Mean
2015-
2016
Rating
2016-
2017
Rating
Teacher
2013-
2014
Rating
2014-
2015
Rating
LEGEND: (for IPCR covering SY 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018)
4.500 - 5.000 Outstanding (O)
3.500 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory (VS)
2.500 – 3.499 Satisfactory (S)
1.500 – 2.499 Unsatisfactory (US)
Below 1.4999 Poor (P)
Table IV shows the change in teacher’s classroom
practices as determined by the Over-All Rating Thru
Competency-Based Performance Appraisal System for
Teachers (CB-PAST) and Performance Evaluation Result
(IPCR) for 5-year Period. There were no entries for nine
teachers. This means that those teachers were not present
during those years. It can also be observed that in 2014-2015,
four teachers have no entries. The reason for this is they had
not been hired yet in DES during that time. For the SY
2015-2016, three teachers have no entries meaning they were
not yet teaching at DES. Lastly, for 2016-2017, two teachers
have no entries which implies that they were not hired yet.
Table IV also reveals that looking at the individual rating
of those teachers with a 5-year minimum number of years in
DES, there was not really tremendous change but mostly
were rated Very Satisfactory from year 1 to Year 5 like
teachers C, D and F. Teachers A and B consistently rated as
Very Satisfactory for the first four consecutive years and
became Outstanding for the last year. However, it can be
noted that Teacher E was rated Very Satisfactory during the
first two years, became Outstanding on the third year, goes
back to Very Satisfactory on the fourth year and finally
became Outstanding.
As per school year, it can be seen that the mean rating of
teachers remained at the Very Satisfactory level. It started
from 2.91 in the School Year 2013-2014, then it went down
to 2.85 on the second year, 2014-2015. On the third year,
2015-2016, it increased to 4.40. This difference in the
numerical rating is brought about by the change of
performance evaluation tool from CB_PAST to IPCR as
discussed in the data gathering instrument. This increased
further on the fourth and fifth school years to 4.44 and 4.49
respectively.
It further represents the performance per teacher for school
years 2013-2018 which implies an increase in the rating of
teachers’ classroom practices. Teachers K, L, M, and N
shows a higher rating as compared to Teachers A-J. The
number of years in DES is a factor for such difference in
performance. The longer the number of years teaching at
DES, the lower the numerical rating tends to be due to the
shift of evaluation tools used in the earlier years. This can be
explained by the change in the use of assessment tool starting
School Year 2015-2016. Those who were evaluated using the
IPCR reflected higher means compared to those with
CB_PAST ratings in the previous years.
The findings serve the very purpose of accomplishing the
IPCR being the general plan of task which serves as guide to
teachers and a tool to evaluate performance (DepEd Order 2,
S. 2015)
VI. CONCLUSION
Most of the teacher-respondents belong to the age group
ranging from 26-45, majority are female, and mostly occupy
Teacher 1 position. Majority are bachelor degree holders
while almost half of the respondents had been in the service
for not greater than 5 years. Most of the teachers had been
teaching at DES for not greater than 5 years. There was no
remarkable change in teachers’ performance were noted as
they were all rated “Very Satisfactory;” this is regardless
whether CBPAST or IPCR was used. Since the two
instruments (i.e. CBPAST and IPCR) are both
self-assessment tools, it is recommended that a more
subjective performance assessment tool be utilized like those
that involves participation of the students and the immediate
superior in the performance evaluation system. In line with
the conclusions made, the following recommendations are
hereby offered: Give seminars to teachers based on training
needs analysis to optimize their potential which may lead
them to higher performance evaluation result. Adopt a
training plan for DES since this is based on the current needs
of the teachers, a training plan can also help the students
enhance their learning outcomes in English, Mathematics,
and Science which will also be beneficial on the part of the
school.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 10, No. 2, February 2020
157
Dr. Cecilia J. Sabio checks the research methodology and
serves as grammarian of the paper. Mrs. Monaliza M. Manalo
conducted the research and wrote the initial draft.
The authors work collaboratively in coming up with the
final draft of the paper. All authors approved the final
version.
REFERENCES
[1] D. R. Beerens, Evaluating Teachers for Professional Growth: Creating
a Culture of Motivation and Learning, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 2000.
[2] C. Alvior, The Basics of Social Research, Belmont, California:
Wadsworth Cengage, pp. 303–04, 2014.
[3] J. A. Lapus, “The education system facing the challenges of the 21st
century country: Republic of the Philippines,” 2008.
[4] RA 10912, “An act mandating and strengthening the continuing
professional development program for all regulated professions,”
Creating Continuing Professional Development Council and
Appropriating Funds Therefore and for Other Related Purposes,
Manila, Philippines, 2015.
[5] A. M. Maligalig, “Sinag teachers’ summit,” Sun Life Financial
Philippines, Novotel Manila, Araneta Center, Quezon City, Philippines,
2018.
[6] H. O'Sullivan, “Leading and managing professional learning in
schools,” Leading and Managing Schools, London: Sage Publications
Ltd., pp. 111–125, 2011.
[7] DepEd Order No.2 S.2015, Guidelines on the Establishment and
Implementation of the Results-Based Performance Management
System (RPMS) in the Department of Education.
[8] RA 9155 (2001), Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, An Act
Instituting a Framework of Governance for Basic Education,
Establishing Authority and Accountability, Renaming the Department
of Education, Culture and Sports as the Department of Education, and
for other Purposes. Manila, Philippines.
[9] M. Canoma, “The benefit to professional development,” American
Educator. vol. 26, no. 2, 2225, 2017.
[10] MC No. 6, 2012 – Guidelines in the Establishment and Implementation
of Agency SPMS.
Copyright © 2020 by the authors. This is an open access article distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
Cecilia Junio-Sabio Sabio was was the former vice
president for Academic Affairs and held the rank of
SUC Vice President IV at the Pamantasan ng
Lungsod ng Maynila (University of rhe City of
Manila). She holds professor V academic rank in
the same University. She has previously worked at
the Commission on Higher Education (CHED),
Office of the Chairman, Office of the President of
the Philippines and a GOCC holding various
management and executive position. She was the former Head of the
Research and Industry Engagement Center of the Gulf College based in
Muscat Oman which is in collaboration with Staffordshire University,
University of Reading and Hull University London, UK. She also teaches in
DLSAU and PUP Graduate Schools.
Monaliza M. Manalo is from Diliman, San Rafael,
Bulacan, Philippines. She was born on April 27,
1978. Currently she is pursuing the master of arts in
educational major in educational administration at
De La Salle Araneta University in Malabon city,
Metro Manila.
She is a master teacher I at Diliman Elementary
School (DES) at Diliman, San Rafael, Bulacan,
Philippines. She is interested in making researches
about educational management.
Mrs. Manalo is an active member of Bulacan Public School Teachers
Association.
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 10, No. 2, February 2020
158
