Under Instructional Competence, an indicator ‘Utilizes the art of questioning to develop higher level of thinking’ shall not be rated four (4) out of 10 because if the administrator does it, the teacher may feel he/she doesn’t know how to ask questions to students considering that 4 is unsatisfactory in the RPAST rating. Now, why an administrator rates 4? Does he formulate his own rubrics on that particular indicator? What are the standard rubrics in rating the Art of Questioning?
It is very much frustrating on the part of the Computer teacher if his/her administrator rates four (4) over 10 on the teacher’s mastery of the Subject Matter knowing that his/her administrator is not literate in PC Hardware and Software trouble shootings as well as in MS Office applications such as MS Word, MS Excel, MS Publisher, MS Access, MS Power Point, and Photoshop. How credible the rating of the administrator was, when he/she rated the teacher 4/10 if he himself failed to observe the Computer teacher while handling the class?
In Professional and Personal Characteristics, there is an indicator, Honesty. I think, no need for us to define it further. That is self-explanatory! But why an administrator rates the teacher, four (4) over 10 of a teacher’s behavior in honesty? Does the teacher stand before the Grievance Committee and pledge ‘guilty’ to a certain accusation in relation to dishonesty? Definitely, the students could easily justify the teacher is dishonest if he/she gave a leakage of answers to students during the Regional Achievement Test (RAT) or the National Achievement Test (NAT).
It was very confusing on the part of the teacher if the administrator had changed the Self Rating of the teacher from eight (8) to four (4) over 10. Supposedly, the principal shall only rate a teacher and write his/her four-poor scores at the Superior's Rating column. Is there a provision of the Civil Service law that would empower the principal to change the teacher's Self Rating? And what are the standard rubrics in an indicator 'Attendance'? I think the correct basis for this indicator is the monthly DTRs or Form 6 or Form 7. And what is the exact number of teacher's absences that would categorize the four-poor score? I think such poor rating was not credible if the teacher had no absences in the particular rating period.
So annoying, if the administrator rates 4/10 on teacher’s commitment to his/her teaching profession even if the teacher was able to secure a multi-media projector in all his/her lectures and discussions. That he/she was able to maintain and develop a website of the school, as well as, to his/her personal website which is intended for online lectures and documentations.
A principal shall have to use an online PC; shall have to try to encode his/her reports; shall have to create forms and tables for documentations; and shall have to secure DepEd Mail account to respond to the immediate concerns that shall be submitted to the division office so that he/she is not dependent to his/her coordinators and teachers in securing his/her reports in a year round…. And that, he would experience what the teachers have experienced.
This is just only an opinion of a frog in a very wide pond. Frustrating and ridiculous! Koka-kaka-