DepEd Core Behavioral Competencies: Indicators and Ratings

The Department of Education (DepEd) rates its personnel on what they accomplish and on how they work. The second part is measured through competencies. DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015, which set up the Results-based Performance Management System (RPMS), defines core behavioral competencies as “competencies, which cut across the organization” and leadership competencies as “competencies intended for managerial positions”, a class that includes school heads and department heads (item 26).

Both sets now count in the rating. In SY 2025-2026, teachers were rated on seven core competencies in the electronic IPCRF (e-IPCRF) of the Performance Management and Evaluation System (PMES) under DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025, and master teachers also on three leadership competencies. School heads are rated on six core behavioral and three leadership competencies in the revised Office Performance Commitment and Review Form (OPCRF). Each competency has five behavioral indicators, and each indicator is rated from 5 (role model) to 1 (rarely demonstrated). In SY 2025-2026 the competencies together carried 5% of the final rating in both forms.

Key findings

• DepEd has four classes of competencies. Core behavioral competencies apply to everyone, leadership competencies to managerial positions, staff core skills to staff and teaching-related personnel, and teaching competencies to teachers (DO 2, s. 2015, item 26). The current forms rate the first two.
• The list of core competencies depends on the document. DO 2, s. 2015 and the OPCRF list six, ending with Innovation. DM 089, s. 2025 lists six with Gender Sensitivity in place of Innovation. The e-IPCRF tool for SY 2025-2026 and the e-SAT for teachers rate seven, both included (DM 089, item 22; e-IPCRF, Part 2-A).
• The three leadership competencies are Leading People, People Performance Management and People Development. Master teachers, department heads and school heads are rated on them (DM 089, item 23; Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2024-0586, Part II-A).
• Each behavioral indicator gets its own rating from 5 to 1. A competency’s rating is the average of its five indicators, and the set’s rating is the average of its competencies (DM 089, item 70; e-IPCRF, Part 2-A; DM-OUHROD-2024-0586, para. 29).
• In SY 2025-2026, competencies carried 5% of a teacher’s rating. A teacher without supervisory functions got 5% for core competencies, and a master teacher 2.5% each for core and leadership. A school head gets 2.5% for each set in the OPCRF (Memorandum DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001, Sec. D; DM-OUHROD-2024-0586, para. 29.d). DO 2, s. 2015 had kept them out of the final rating (item 27).
• The school head rates master teachers, department heads, assistant principals and school-based non-teaching staff, and the ASDS rates the school head (DM 089, Table 18; Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2025-0922, item 3.c).
• Inclusive behavior is rated within the core behavioral competencies. DepEd Order No. 030, s. 2025, the Inclusive Employment Policy, states that “Employee’s demonstration of inclusive behaviors shall be rated as part of the employee’s Core Behavioral Competencies” (DO 030, s. 2025, Encl. No. 2, Sec. IX.C.d.v).

What DepEd means by competencies

DO 2, s. 2015 defines the term in item 25: “Competencies are defined as the knowledge, skills and behavior that individuals demonstrate in achieving one’s results. Competencies shall uphold the DepEd’s core values. They represent the way individuals define and live the values.” Item 26 then sorts them into four classes.

The RPMS framework in Annex B of the same order explains why a rating needs both results and competencies. Its left side shows what must be achieved, from the strategic priorities down to each employee’s key result areas (KRAs) and objectives. “On the other hand, the right hand side of the framework refers to HOW the success indicators are supposed to be achieved. The organizational values are specified into sets of competencies, which the individual employees demonstrate in performing their tasks.”

Two sets of values sit behind the competencies. The first is DepEd’s own core values, Maka-Diyos, Maka-tao, Makakalikasan and Makabansa, adopted by DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013. The second is the code of conduct for all government employees. DM 089, s. 2025 anchors the core competencies on Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and states that “these competencies represent how individuals demonstrate and uphold the values of the organization and the civil service” (item 22). Section 4(A) of RA 6713 sets eight norms of conduct: commitment to public interest, professionalism, justness and sincerity, political neutrality, responsiveness to the public, nationalism and patriotism, commitment to democracy, and simple living. The first indicator of Professionalism and Ethics points to these norms; the guide to RA 6713 for school heads explains them.

In short, the professional standards and the KRAs measure the work, and the competencies measure the conduct behind it. A teacher’s IPCRF rates the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST) indicators in Part I and the competencies in Part II. A school head’s OPCRF rates the school’s commitments in Part I and the head’s competencies in Part II.

Which list of core competencies applies

The documents in force do not list the same core competencies.

For teachers, the tool decides the computation, because “All teachers shall use the official e-IPCRF tool to encode IPCR data for SY 2025-2026” (DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001, Sec. E.a). That tool averages all seven competencies in Part 2-A, and its development plan draws strengths and needs from all seven. For school heads, the OPCRF has no separate Gender Sensitivity competency. Its nearest indicator is the third under Service Orientation, “Initiates activities that promote advocacy for men and women empowerment.”

DO 030, s. 2025, issued two days before DM 089, has inclusive behavior rated within the core behavioral competencies without naming one (Encl. No. 2, Sec. IX.C.d.v).

The seven core behavioral competencies and their indicators

The indicators below are printed as they appear in the e-IPCRF tool for SY 2025-2026 (Part 2-A). The OPCRF prints the same indicators for the six competencies it shares, with small differences in wording. The line after each list gives examples of evidence a rater might record; the examples are illustrations, not requirements.

Self-Management

1. Sets personal goals and directions, needs and development.
2. Undertakes personal actions and behavior that are clear and purposive and takes into account personal goals and values congruent to that of the organization.
3. Displays emotional maturity and enthusiasm for and is challenged by higher goals.
4. Prioritizes work tasks and schedules (through Gantt charts, checklists, etc.) to achieve goals.
5. Sets high quality, challenging, realistic goals for self and others.

Evidence a rater might record: development goals written in the IDP and pursued during the year, a work plan or checklist kept for a busy quarter, and calm conduct during a difficult parent conference.

Professionalism and Ethics

1. Demonstrates the values and behavior enshrined in the Norms and Conduct [sic] and Ethical Standards for public officials and employees (RA 6713).
2. Practices ethical and professional behavior and conduct taking into account the impact of his/her actions and decisions.
3. Maintains a professional image: being trustworthy, regularity of attendance and punctuality, good grooming and communication.
4. Makes personal sacrifices to meet the organization’s needs.
5. Act with a sense of urgency and responsibility to meet the organization’s needs, improve system and help others improve their effectiveness.

Evidence a rater might record: attendance and punctuality, refusal of a gift from a supplier or a parent, and confidentiality kept on a learner’s case.

Results Focus

1. Achieves results with optimal use of time and resources most of the time.
2. Avoids rework, mistakes and wastage through effective work methods by placing organizational needs before personal needs.
3. Delivers error-free outputs most of the time by conforming to standard operating procedures correctly and consistently. Able to produce very satisfactory quality work in terms of usefulness/acceptability and completeness with no supervision required.
4. Expresses a desire to do better and may express frustration at waste or inefficiency. May focus on new or more precise ways of meeting goals set.
5. Makes specific changes in the system or in own work methods to improve performance. Examples may include doing something better, faster, at a lower cost, more efficiently, or improving quality, customer satisfaction, morale, without setting any specific goal.

Evidence a rater might record: school forms and reports submitted complete and on time, and a change in the teacher’s own routine that saved class time.

Teamwork

1. Willingly does his/her share of responsibility.
2. Promotes collaboration and removes barrier to teamwork and goal accomplishment across the organization.
3. Applies negotiation principles in arriving at win-win agreements.
4. Drives consensus and team ownership of decisions.
5. Works constructively and collaboratively with others and across organizations to accomplish organization goals and objectives.

Evidence a rater might record: shared work in a grade-level group or learning action cell (LAC), and a scheduling conflict settled between two teachers.

Service Orientation

1. Can explain and articulate organizational directions, issues and problems.
2. Takes personal responsibility for dealing with and/or correcting customer service issues and concerns.
3. Initiates activities that promote advocacy for men and women empowerment.
4. Participates in updating office vision, mission, mandates and strategies based on DepEd strategies and directions.
5. Develops and adopts service improvement program through simplified procedures that will further enhance service delivery.

Evidence a rater might record: a parent’s request handled to the end, a policy explained clearly at a meeting, and a simpler way for parents to request school records.

Innovation

1. Examines the root cause of problems and suggests effective solutions. Foster new ideas, processes and suggests better ways to do things (cost and/or operational efficiency).
2. Demonstrates an ability to think “beyond the box”. Continuously focuses on improving personal productivity to create higher value and results.
3. Promotes a creative climate and inspires co-workers to develop original ideas or solutions.
4. Translates creative thinking into tangible changes and solutions that improve the work unit and organization.
5. Uses ingenious methods to accomplish responsibilities. Demonstrates resourcefulness and the ability to succeed with minimal resources.

Evidence a rater might record: a root cause analysis behind a class intervention, and learning materials made from local resources.

Gender Sensitivity

1. Recognizes and respects individual differences.
2. Does not discriminate persons on the basis of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Gender Expression, and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC).
3. Promotes gender equality, diversity, and inclusion in the workplace.
4. Has zero-tolerance to gender-biases, discriminatory and exclusionary behaviors and practices.
5. Taking affirmatice [sic] action to address gender inequalities.

Evidence a rater might record: fair assignment of tasks between women and men on the staff, and a biased remark in a meeting corrected on the spot.

The three leadership competencies and their indicators

Leadership competencies apply to managerial and supervisory positions. DO 2, s. 2015 names “School Heads and Department Heads” among them (item 26). DM 089, s. 2025 applies them to “Teachers with supervisory functions, such as Master Teachers and Department Heads”, assessed “in relation to their functional roles” (item 23), and rates them with “applicable indicators from the Leadership Competency Framework” (item 81). The e-IPCRF tool rates them for Highly Proficient and Distinguished teachers, that is, master teachers. The tool sets the weights by career stage, while the March 2026 guidance gives the 2.5% leadership weight to master teachers “and for those with supervisory functions”. A department head who holds a Teacher I to VII position should therefore ask the SDO how to encode the leadership part. The school head’s own OPCRF rates the same three competencies in Part II-A, which “shall capture competencies expected of heads of functional offices who hold managerial and executive/supervisory positions.”

The indicators below are printed as they appear in the e-IPCRF (Part 2-B).

Leading People

1. Uses basic persuasion techniques in a discussion or presentation e.g., staff mobilization, appeals to reason and/or emotions, uses data and examples, visual aids
2. Persuades, convinces or influences others, in order to have a specific impact or effect.
3. “Sets a good example”, is a credible and respected leader; and demonstrates desired behavior.
4. Forwards personal, professional and work unit needs and interests in an issue.
5. Assumes a pivotal role in promoting the development of an inspiring, relevant vision for the organization and influences others to share ownership of DepEd goals, in order to create an effective work environment.

People Performance Management

1. Makes specific changes in the performance management system or in own work methods to improve performance (e.g. does something better, faster, at lower cost, more efficiently; improves quality, customer satisfaction, morale, revenues).
2. Sets performance standards and measures progress of employees based on office and department targets.
3. Provides feedback and technical assistance such as coaching for performance improvement and action planning.
4. States performance expectations clearly and checks understanding and commitment.
5. Performs all the stages of result-based performance management system supported by evidence and required documents/forms.

People Development

1. Improves the skills and effectiveness of individuals through employing a range of development strategies.
2. Facilitates workforce effectiveness through coaching and motivating/developing people within a work environment that promotes mutual trust and respect.
3. Conceptualizes and implements learning interventions to meet identified training needs.
4. Does long-term coaching or training by arranging appropriate and helpful assignments, formal training, or other experiences for the purpose of supporting a person’s learning and development.
5. Cultivates a learning environment by structuring interactive experiences such as looking for future opportunities that are in support of achieving individual career goals.

For a school head, most of the evidence for these three comes from running the performance cycle itself: the expectations set with each teacher in Phase I, the coaching records of Phase II, and the development plans of Phase IV. The guides to instructional supervision and human resource management cover that work.

How competencies are rated

DM 089, s. 2025 and the OPCRF guidelines use the same five-point scale with different labels. The PMES labels follow the adjectival ratings; the OPCRF keeps the older labels of DO 2, s. 2015.

The scale is applied to each behavioral indicator, not to the competency as a whole. This changed from 2015. DO 2, s. 2015 rated a competency by counting indicators: “5 (role model) - all competency indicators”, down to “1 (rarely demonstrates) - one competency indicator” (Table 4). Today the computation runs in four steps:

1. Rate each indicator. “The rater shall write the appropriate rating for each behavioral indicator observed using the 5-point rating scale” (DM 089, item 70). The OPCRF guidelines give the same rule for Parts II-A and II-B (para. 29.a).
2. Average each competency. The competency’s rating is the average of its five indicators (DM-OUHROD-2024-0586, para. 29.c). Ratings of 5, 4, 4, 5 and 4 on Teamwork give 4.4.
3. Average the set. The e-IPCRF averages the seven core competencies and rounds the result to three decimals; it averages the three leadership competencies the same way.
4. Apply the weight. The set’s average is multiplied by its weight (see the next section).

The OPCRF guidelines add that providing detailed remarks or observations “is highly recommended to support the rating for each behavioral indicator”. The remarks may include “significant incidents observed, feedback, and suggestions for improvement” (para. 29.b).

When competencies are discussed, observed and rated

Who rates whom in a school

The rater writes the competency ratings; the e-IPCRF marks its competency sheets “to be accomplished by the RATER.” The table combines DM 089’s matrix for teachers with the interim matrix of DM-OUHROD-2025-0922 for the rest of the school.

Divisions may add their own procedure. For SY 2025-2026, SDO Baguio City had four people rate a school head’s leadership and core behavioral competencies: one peer, a “School Head from another School”, and one teacher, one non-teaching staff member and one PTA member from the same school. The division’s Performance Management Team (PMT) secretariat consolidated the ratings (Division Memorandum No. 176-2026, item 2). The OPCRF guide compares Baguio’s procedure with those of two other divisions.

How much competencies count in the final rating

DO 2, s. 2015 kept competencies out of the score: “The assessment in the demonstration of competencies shall not be reflected in the final rating” (item 27). For teachers in SY 2024-2025, DepEd Memorandum No. 017, s. 2025 still put the whole rating on 14 PPST-based objectives at 7.143% each. The revised OPCRF of 2024 and the PMES of 2025 brought competencies into the score.

The March 2026 memorandum is interim guidance for SY 2025-2026 and states that “A separate issuance shall be released to provide comprehensive guidelines on the implementation of PMES beginning SY 2026-2027.” As of November 6, 2026, DepEd has not issued it. DM 089, which runs to SY 2027-2028, keeps Part I at 95% (item 74).

The other 95% is Part I: the 14 PPST indicators, 6.786% each as printed (95% ÷ 14, the value the e-IPCRF uses) for teachers, and the school’s commitments, innovations and organizational effectiveness for school heads.

Here is an illustrative computation for a Teacher III, with made-up ratings. The e-IPCRF does the arithmetic in practice.

1. The seven core competency averages are 4.4, 4.2, 4.0, 4.6, 3.8, 4.0 and 4.4. Their average is 4.200.
2. Part II: 4.200 × 5% = 0.210.
3. Part I: the 14 indicator ratings add up to 63, and 63 × (95% ÷ 14) = 4.275.
4. Final rating: 4.275 + 0.210 = 4.485, which is 4 (Very Satisfactory). Had the core average been 4.600, Part II would be 0.230 and the final rating 4.505, which is 5 (Outstanding).

At 5%, Part II adds between 0.050 (every indicator rated 1) and 0.250 (every indicator rated 5), a range of 0.200. Competencies cannot lift a weak Part I, but they can decide a rating that sits near a boundary such as 4.500. For a school head, each set adds between 0.025 and 0.125, the maximum that the February 2025 OPCRF prints beside each 2.5% weight.

Where competencies matter beyond the rating

The development plan. DO 2, s. 2015 calls the competencies a ratee “demonstrated consistently” their strengths and the competencies the ratee “rarely demonstrates” their development needs (item 49). The e-IPCRF applies this automatically: Part IV lists the three core competencies with the highest ratings as strengths and the three with the lowest as development needs, and does the same with the highest and lowest leadership competency. The OPCRF puts the head’s own strengths and needs in Part IV-B, the Individual Development Plan, as “bases for training and professional development” (DM-OUHROD-2024-0586, para. 36).

Hiring and promotion. DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2023 defines the Behavioral Events Interview (BEI) as an inquiry into applicants’ “display of desired behaviour/s when subjected to specific situations or conditions in their previous and/or current workplace”. It “shall be used to validate if key behaviours linked to the required competencies have been exhibited by the applicants” (Encl. No. 1, item 8.e). For school administration positions, the potential criterion gives the written examination 10 points and the BEI 5 points for entry-level school principal positions, and 5 and 10 points for higher school head positions (Encl. No. 3, item 8). The order does not tie the BEI to the RPMS list of competencies; it asks about the competencies the position requires.

Inclusion. DO 030, s. 2025, the Inclusive Employment Policy of September 29, 2025, covers every level of DepEd, public schools included (Sec. II). Besides rating inclusive behavior, it directs that “Behaviors that do not conform with the inclusive principles displayed by employees towards those who belong to marginalized groups shall be discussed during coaching and/or mentoring sessions” (Encl. No. 2, Sec. IX.C.c.iv). Under the same section, coaching may not take a person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion or similar attributes into account “to the disadvantage of the employee” (Sec. IX.C.c.ii).

What is coming for school heads

DepEd is building a PMES for school heads anchored on the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), adopted by DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020. Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2025-3315 of November 19, 2025 called a workshop to draft these PMES-PPSSH tools. A notice of the Human Resource Development Division on January 27, 2026 moved two validation workshops on the drafts (DM-OUHROD-2026-0080) to March 11 to 13 and April 27 to 29, 2026. The Research Institute for Teacher Quality reported a two-part development workshop on the draft tools on June 16 to 18 and July 13 to 16, 2026, whose first leg identified leadership and functional competencies as a baseline for the tool.

As of November 6, 2026, DepEd has not issued the PMES-PPSSH tools. School heads are rated on the OPCRF of DM-OUHROD-2024-0586 and its February 2025 version, under DO 2, s. 2015, as the OPCRF guide explains. Check your SDO’s current issuance before the rating period.

What this means for school heads

1. Use the right list for each ratee. Rate teachers on the core competencies of the current e-IPCRF tool (seven in SY 2025-2026), and master teachers also on the three leadership competencies. Your own OPCRF has six core and three leadership competencies.
2. Discuss the competencies at the start. In Phase I, go over the indicators with each teacher you rate and with each master teacher who rates teachers, so that everyone knows what behavior will be looked for (DO 2, s. 2015, item 25; DM 089, item 10).
3. Record behavior when it happens. Note significant incidents in the PMCF and have both parties sign them (DO 2, s. 2015, item 33). A year-end rating built on memory tends to reward the last month and the most visible teachers.
4. Rate each indicator from the recorded evidence. For teachers, significant incidents “shall be recorded by the Rater using the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Form (PMCF)” (DM 089, item 39). A rating of 5 means the behavior “inspires and influences others” (DM 089, Table 12). Give it where the record shows it, not to every teacher as a courtesy.
5. Discuss the ratings and use them in the development plan. “The rater shall discuss with the ratee the set of competencies observed during the performance cycle” (DO 2, s. 2015, item 46; DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001, Sec. D). Turn the lowest-rated competencies into coaching and learning and development plans, which is the work of PPSSH Domain 4, strands 4.4 (performance management) and 4.5 (professional development of school personnel).
6. Coach on inclusion. Raise non-inclusive behavior in coaching, as DO 030, s. 2025 requires. The order does not name the competency under which inclusive behavior is rated; the closest indicators are those of Gender Sensitivity in the e-IPCRF and the third indicator of Service Orientation in the OPCRF. This serves indicator 5.3.2 on inclusive practice, “such as gender sensitivity”, in PPSSH Domain 5.
7. Assess your own competencies. The leadership indicators describe your own job. Self-assess against them and the PPSSH (indicator 4.1.1) before your OPCRF review, when you choose your self-perceived competencies and discuss the ratings with the ASDS (OPCRF guidelines, para. 29).
8. Live the values you rate. The core competencies rest on DepEd’s core values and RA 6713. Communicating them to the school community is indicator 1.1.2 of PPSSH Domain 1.

The guide to the PMES for teachers covers the rest of the teacher’s IPCRF, and the guide to department heads and assistant school head designates explains the forms those roles use.

How the NASH may test this

The items below are original practice items, scored 3 (Relational), 2 (Multistructural), 1 (Unistructural) or 0 (Prestructural). An option that breaks a rule scores 0.

Question 1

Indicator 4.4.2, Performance management. Career Stage 2, Situational, Moderate.

You are the school head of a large elementary school. At the end of the school year you are rating a Master Teacher II’s leadership competencies. Your coaching notes, signed by both of you, show that the Master Teacher coached three new teachers every month but never set performance expectations with them or held their mid-year reviews. The Master Teacher, who is applying for promotion, asks you to rate every indicator 5 because their classroom observation ratings were Outstanding. What is the most appropriate action?

• A. Rate every leadership indicator 5 as the Master Teacher requests, since the Outstanding classroom observation ratings already show the leadership that these competencies describe.
• B. Rate each indicator from the signed coaching notes and cite the recorded incidents, then finalize the e-IPCRF without discussing the ratings with the Master Teacher.
• C. Rate each indicator from the signed coaching notes, cite the recorded incidents, and discuss the ratings with the Master Teacher so the gaps go into their development plan.
• D. Give each leadership competency one overall rating from your impression of the year, and keep the signed coaching notes on file as support for the ratings.

Answer and explanation

Best answer: C. Points: A = 0, B = 2, C = 3, D = 1.

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Classroom observation ratings belong to Part I and say nothing about how the Master Teacher manages and develops other teachers; rating every indicator 5 on request ignores the recorded gaps and is not a rating of the behavior observed.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). It rates each indicator from the recorded evidence, but it skips the discussion with the ratee that the guidelines require, so the gaps never reach the development plan.
• C (3 points, Relational). It rates each indicator from the signed record and discusses the ratings so that the missing expectation-setting and reviews become development needs.
• D (1 point, Unistructural). It keeps the evidence, but one impression-based rating per competency replaces the indicator-by-indicator rating the scale requires and hides which behaviors are missing.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 4.4.2 asks the school head to implement the performance management system to support school personnel’s career advancement. The rater “shall write the appropriate rating for each behavioral indicator observed” (DM 089, s. 2025, item 70), and “shall discuss with the ratee the set of competencies observed during the performance cycle” (DO 2, s. 2015, item 46; DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001, Sec. D), with development needs entered in the plan (DO 2, s. 2015, item 49; DM 089, item 89). The option that submits without the discussion rates correctly but leaves out the step that turns the rating into development.

Indicator 4.4.2: Implement the performance management system with a team to support the career advancement of school personnel, and to improve office performance.

Sources: DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025, items 23, 39, 70 and 89; DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015, items 33, 46 and 49; DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001, Sec. D.

Question 2

Indicator 4.4.1, Performance management. Career Stage 1, Conceptual, Easy.

A teacher’s IPCRF rates the 14 PPST indicators in Part I and the core competencies in Part II. Which statement best explains why the form rates both?

• A. The indicators measure practice against the professional standards, while the competencies show how the teacher works and upholds the values of DepEd and the civil service.
• B. The competencies rate how the teacher works with colleagues and clients, and they carry a small weight, so they can decide a final rating that falls near a boundary.
• C. The competencies record the teacher’s attendance, punctuality and grooming, which the PPST indicators leave out, so the form also serves as a record of attendance.
• D. The competencies replace the PPST indicators for teachers who were not observed in class during the school year, so that every teacher still receives a complete final rating.

Answer and explanation

Best answer: A. Points: A = 3, B = 2, C = 1, D = 0.

• A (3 points, Relational). It names what each part measures and connects the competencies to their purpose: the conduct and values behind the work, which the PPST indicators do not rate.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). It sees that the competencies concern how the teacher works and that they carry weight, but it explains them by their effect on the score rather than by the values they measure.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). Attendance, punctuality and grooming appear in one indicator of Professionalism and Ethics, but they are one of 35 indicators, and the competencies are not an attendance record.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). The competencies replace nothing. Every teacher is rated on both parts, and the competencies never stand in for unobserved indicators.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.4.1 asks for knowledge and understanding of the performance management system. DM 089, s. 2025 anchors the core competencies on RA 6713 and states that “these competencies represent how individuals demonstrate and uphold the values of the organization and the civil service” (item 22), while Part I rates the PPST indicators. The option about the score sees what the competencies cover and what they weigh, but not why they are rated.

Indicator 4.4.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the implementation of the performance management system in improving school personnel and office performance.

Sources: DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025, items 22 and 80; DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001, Sec. D.

Nothing in this guide reproduces or predicts examination content.

Frequently asked questions

What are the core behavioral competencies of DepEd?

DO 2, s. 2015 and the OPCRF list six: Self-Management, Professionalism and Ethics, Results Focus (“Result Focus” in DO 2’s forms), Teamwork, Service Orientation and Innovation. DM 089, s. 2025 lists Gender Sensitivity in place of Innovation, and the e-IPCRF for teachers in SY 2025-2026 rates all seven. Each has five behavioral indicators.

What are the leadership competencies in the IPCRF and OPCRF?

Leading People, People Performance Management and People Development, each with five behavioral indicators. Master teachers and others with supervisory functions are rated on them in the IPCRF (DM 089, s. 2025, item 23), and school heads in Part II-A of the OPCRF (DM-OUHROD-2024-0586).

How are core behavioral competencies rated?

The rater rates each behavioral indicator from 5 (Outstanding, or Role Model in the OPCRF) to 1 (Poor, or Rarely Demonstrated). A competency’s rating is the average of its five indicators, and the core rating is the average of the competencies (DM 089, s. 2025, item 70; e-IPCRF, Part 2-A; DM-OUHROD-2024-0586, para. 29). The competencies are assessed and rated at the end of the school year, after a preliminary assessment at mid-year.

How much do competencies count in the IPCRF?

In SY 2025-2026, core competencies were 5% of the final rating for teachers without supervisory functions, and core and leadership competencies 2.5% each for master teachers and others with supervisory functions (DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001, Sec. D). That guidance covers SY 2025-2026 only; as of November 6, 2026, DepEd has not issued the guidelines it promised for SY 2026-2027. At these weights, competencies move the final rating by at most 0.200 points.

Who rates a teacher’s competencies?

The teacher’s rater under DM 089, s. 2025, Table 18: a master teacher for elementary teachers, where the school has one; a master teacher, department head or assistant school head in junior high school; a master teacher or assistant school head in senior high school; and the school head where no such rater exists. The school head rates master teachers directly.

Sources

DepEd issuances:

• 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, February 6, 2015: items 25 to 27, 33, 45, 46, 49, Table 4, Annex B, and the RPMS forms, Part II.
• DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013, Our Department of Education Vision, Mission and Core Values (DepEd VMV), September 4, 2013.
• DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2023, Guidelines on Recruitment, Selection, and Appointment in the Department of Education: Encl. No. 1, item 8.e; Encl. No. 3, item 8.
• DepEd Order No. 030, s. 2025, Inclusive Employment Policy in the Department of Education, September 29, 2025: Encl. No. 2, Sec. IX.C.
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads: indicators 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.2 and 5.3.2.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 017, s. 2025, Interim Guidelines for the Department of Education Performance Management and Evaluation System for Teachers in the School Year 2024-2025, February 7, 2025: item 39.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025, Guidelines on the Multi-Year Performance Management and Evaluation System for Teachers from School Years 2025-2026 to 2027-2028, October 1, 2025: items 10, 22 to 24, 39, 69, 70, 74, 79 to 82, 89, Tables 12, 17 and 18; Annex A (e-SAT for Teachers 2025-2028, version 2) and Annex F (e-IPCRF tool for SY 2025-2026, version 2), Parts 2-A, 2-B, 3 and 4.
• Memorandum DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001, Guidance in the Implementation of the Performance Management and Evaluation System (PMES) for Teachers for SY 2025-2026, March 3, 2026: Secs. D and E.
• Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2024-0586, Interim Guidelines for the Office Performance Planning and Assessment for FY 2024 Onwards, March 27, 2024, with the revised OPCRF (Annex A) and the interim guidelines (Annex B): paras. 4, 29 and 36; transmitted by DepEd Region VIII Regional Memorandum No. 391, s. 2024.
• Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2025-0922, Additional Guidance on the Implementation of Performance Management and Evaluation System (PMES), April 10, 2025, with Annex B, Interim OPCRF ver. Feb2025: items 3.b and 3.c; disseminated by SDO Calbayog City.
• Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2025-3315, Consultation Workshop and Drafting of the Performance Management and Evaluation System (PMES) – Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH) Tools, November 19, 2025; posted by DepEd Region VIII.
• Human Resource Development Division, notice on DM-OUHROD-2026-0080, Validation Workshops on the Draft PMES-PPSSH Tools, January 27, 2026; posted by DepEd Region VIII.
• SDO Baguio City, Division Memorandum No. 176-2026, Guidance on Filling Out the Electronic OPCRF for School Heads, School Head Designates, and IPCRF for Assistant School Head Designates, SY 2025-2026, March 5, 2026: item 2.

Law:

• Republic Act No. 6713, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, February 20, 1989: Sec. 4(A).

Other:

• Research Institute for Teacher Quality, RITQ joins the development of PMES-PPSSH tools for school heads, July 24, 2026.

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Orders No. 2, s. 2015, No. 36, s. 2013, No. 007, s. 2023, No. 030, s. 2025 and No. 024, s. 2020; DepEd Memoranda No. 017, s. 2025 and No. 089, s. 2025, with the e-SAT and e-IPCRF tools; Memoranda DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001, DM-OUHROD-2024-0586, DM-OUHROD-2025-0922 and DM-OUHROD-2025-3315; SDO Baguio City Division Memorandum No. 176-2026; RA 6713.