DepEd PMES for Teachers: DM 089, s. 2025 for School Heads

The Department of Education’s (DepEd) Performance Management and Evaluation System (PMES) for teachers is set by DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025, with transition rules for School Year (SY) 2025-2026 in Memorandum DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001. This guide is written for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH, formerly the NQESH) and for new school heads, who rate teachers, approve their ratings and coach them.

For teachers, the PMES took the place of the Results-based Performance Management System (RPMS) aligned with the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST), known as the RPMS-PPST. This guide covers the PMES phases and timelines, its tools, classroom observations, how ratings are computed, who rates whom, and how a fair rater uses evidence and coaching. That work maps to the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH). The strands are 4.4, 4.5 and 4.8 of Domain 4, Developing Self and Others, and 3.3 of Domain 3, Focusing on Teaching and Learning.

Key points

• The PMES is DepEd’s current performance appraisal for teachers. DM 089, s. 2025 sets it for SY 2025-2026 to SY 2027-2028. It covers Teachers I to VII and Master Teachers I to V, including teachers in the Alternative Learning System (ALS), Madrasah, Special Needs Education and Special Science programs.
• The four phases did not change, but the workload did. Each year rates 14 PPST indicators instead of 15 objectives. It requires two full-period classroom observations instead of four, and no portfolio is collected.
• SY 2025-2026 had its own transition rules. The March 2026 guidance required only one full-period observation. Teachers could cover unobserved indicators with a Reflection Journal and evidence.
• The rater depends on the school’s staff. Where the school has them, master teachers, department heads or assistant school heads rate teachers, and the school head approves. The school head rates master teachers, head teachers with a teaching load, and teachers in schools that have none of those raters.
• Ratings must rest on evidence. Classroom Observation Tool (COT) scores are converted to a 5-point PMES scale. Observers agree on a final rating by reasoned consensus, never by averaging, and the 14 PPST indicators carry 95% of the final rating.
• Coaching is built into the system. The rater prepares an Instructional Supervisory (IS) Plan, conducts non-rated walkthroughs, records significant incidents in the Performance Monitoring and Coaching Form (PMCF), and agrees with each teacher on an Individual Development Plan (IDP).

What the DepEd PMES is and whom it covers

DM 089, s. 2025 issues the guidelines on the multi-year PMES for teachers. Secretary Sonny Angara signed it on October 1, 2025. Its purpose is continuous management and evaluation of teacher performance aligned with the PPST, which DepEd adopted through DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2017.

The memorandum covers all public school teachers: Teachers I to VII and Master Teachers I to V. This includes teachers in the ALS, Madrasah, Special Needs Education and Special Science Education programs. ALS teachers stationed in community learning centers (CLCs) and the Schools Division Office (SDO) follow the same cycle.

The PMES starts a new three-year cycle that covers all 37 PPST indicators. Each school year rates 14 of them. Some are classroom observable indicators (COIs), rated through classroom observation. The rest are non-classroom observable indicators (NCOIs), rated through documents and other evidence of practice.

Each teacher is rated at the PPST career stage of the position he or she holds:

The table follows Table 2 of DM 089 and the March 2026 guidance. One other table in DM 089 (Table 10) groups Master Teacher III with the Highly Proficient stage. The memorandum’s own list of tools and the March 2026 guidance place Master Teacher III under Distinguished, as shown above.

The positions Teacher IV to VII and Master Teacher V come from the Expanded Career Progression (ECP) system. DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2025 sets its guidelines. For promotion through reclassification, that order requires a PMES Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form (IPCRF) rating of at least Very Satisfactory, and for each position a set number of PPST indicators rated Very Satisfactory or Outstanding (Enclosure No. 2, Section 14.a). DO 034, s. 2025 relaxes the indicator requirement for some teachers until February 24, 2028. A school head’s ratings therefore affect teachers’ careers directly.

How the PMES replaced the RPMS-PPST

The PMES came after two years of review. The table lists the issuances in order.

The July 2024 deferment covered all school-based personnel, so that they could prepare for the opening of classes. DO 2, s. 2015 has not been replaced. DM 089 still cites it, and DM 017, s. 2025 said that a revision was being prepared. As of October 26, 2026, DepEd has issued no new order on performance management.

PMES vs RPMS: what changed

The table compares the last RPMS-PPST guidelines (DM 008, s. 2023) with the PMES (DM 089, s. 2025).

Three changes matter most to a rater. First, fewer rated observations mean that each one must be planned and protected. Second, with no portfolio, the rater must give feedback on documents as the teacher shows them during the year, and record it. Third, the IS Plan and the walkthroughs make coaching a written part of the rater’s job, not an extra.

The four phases of the PMES cycle and their timelines

The PMES follows the school calendar. DM 089 sets the following annual timeline (Table 1 of the memorandum, condensed).

The IPCRF is the teacher’s rating form. DM 089 states that it is designed to capture both the professional standards and the core and leadership competencies.

Phase I: Performance Planning and Commitment

The rater discusses the year’s standards and competencies with each teacher. The teacher completes a full self-assessment on all 37 indicators once every three years, or upon assuming duty if newly hired, and prepares a multiyear IDP. The rater then prepares the IS Plan from the IDPs of the teachers he or she rates. It shows the dates of both full-period observations and the professional development (PD) planned for each teacher. The phase ends when the teacher commits to improved learner performance targets and PPST-based targets.

Phase II: Performance Monitoring and Coaching

Phase II runs the whole school year through three activities:

1. Regular technical assistance, coaching and mentoring, including walkthroughs of about 10 to 15 minutes. These are “non-rated, formative, and developmental”, and each ends with a brief debriefing.
2. Two full-period classroom observations, rated with the COT.
3. The teacher’s documentation of NCOIs, with the rater’s timely feedback.

The rater records significant incidents and feedback in the PMCF, and tracks each teacher’s participation in the planned PD. DM 089 describes the rater as “the coach or mentor of the Ratee”.

Phase III: Performance Review and Evaluation

The mid-year review, five months after the opening of classes, is formative. It covers the COIs from the first observation, progress on NCOIs and a first assessment of competencies, and targets may be calibrated. The year-end review is summative. The rater and the teacher compare accomplishments with the commitments and finalize every rating, and the approving authority takes part.

Phase IV: Performance Rewarding and Development Planning

Final ratings are the basis for recognition, rewards and development. Teachers with exceptional performance get priority or eligibility for promotion, scholarships, training and awards, subject to the rules on each. The rater and the teacher then finalize the annual IDP. It must reflect the teacher’s strengths and needs, the coaching needs seen during the year, and alignment with the School Improvement Plan (SIP).

PMES tools and forms

DM 089 lists the tools in its Section VI. The memorandum says they are accessible through a link that requires an official DepEd email address.

The March 2026 guidance adds the submission steps for SY 2025-2026. All teachers use the official e-IPCRF tool. Before finalization, the rater and the approving authority verify the ratings that the teacher encoded, and the teacher submits the finished tool to the school head. The school head or a designated non-teaching staff member uploads each teacher’s e-IPCRF to the Online e-IPCRF System using the school’s official email account.

PPST indicators rated each school year

DM 089 fixes the 14 indicators for each year and does not allow any change to the set. The table uses the Proficient numbering (Career Stage 2). Highly Proficient and Distinguished teachers are rated on the same indicator numbers at their own stage, for example 1.1.3 or 1.1.4 instead of 1.1.2.

Indicators 1.1 and 1.4 repeat in all three years, and 1.5 repeats in the first two. These repeating COIs are observed in both full-period observations. The other COIs are split between the first and the second observation, so each observation covers five or six indicators.

For SY 2026-2027, DM 089 schedules 1.1.2, 1.4.2, 1.5.2, 1.6.2, 2.1.2 and 2.2.2 for the first observation. It schedules 1.1.2, 1.4.2, 1.5.2, 3.2.2, 3.5.2 and 5.3.2 for the second. Master teachers have a dual role as classroom teacher and mentor. For some of their COIs, listed in Table 11 of DM 089, they must show evidence of mentoring and working with colleagues as well as classroom practice.

Classroom observations under the PMES

How many classroom observations are required

DM 089 requires two full-period classroom observations each school year. The first takes place at any time in the 1st or 2nd quarter, and the second at any time in the 3rd or 4th quarter. The rater and the teacher agree on each date.

For SY 2025-2026 only, DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001 required one full-period observation. A teacher who completed two was deemed fully compliant and could select the higher rating for each COI from either observation. A teacher who completed one was also compliant. Indicators left unobserved could be rated from practice recorded in the observer’s notes, if the teacher preferred. Otherwise, the teacher covered them with a Reflection Journal and evidence, such as an implemented lesson plan in any format, an assessment tool or an instructional material.

A teacher with no observation yet had two options. One was a single full-period observation covering all nine COIs. The other was a single observation that left up to three of the nine unobserved when they did not apply to the lesson, with a Reflection Journal for those indicators.

Who observes

The rater is the observer, and there may be more than one observer. When there are several observers, only the subject specialist rates indicator 1.1 (content knowledge). The exception is elementary teachers, who are generalists: every observer rates that indicator for them. A teacher in the Highly Proficient or Distinguished stage must be observed by at least one teacher-ratee, as part of mentoring and coaching.

The observation protocol, step by step

1. Agree on the date. Set it at least three working days before the observation and enter it in the IS Plan. If a schedule conflict prevents the observation, set a new date immediately.
2. Hold a pre-observation conference. Review the COT rubric for the teacher’s career stage and the COIs scheduled for this observation.
3. Receive the lesson plan. The teacher submits it at least one day before. Observers are discouraged from giving technical assistance on the lesson plan that will be used in the rated observation.
4. Observe the whole period. Use the Observation Notes Form. Sit apart from other observers, do not talk with them, and give no feedback during the lesson, including facial expressions or gestures. Thank the teacher and leave quietly at the end.
5. Rate individually. Rate only the indicators scheduled for this observation, and only from what the notes record.
6. Agree as observers. If ratings differ, meet and decide the final rating by reasoned consensus against the rubric. DM 089 states that the final rating “shall not be an average of the individual ratings”.
7. Hold the post-observation conference. Do it immediately or within three days. Let the teacher reflect on strengths and areas for improvement, and give constructive feedback.

The default mode is face-to-face. When national or local announcements affect school operations, DM 089 allows online synchronous observation, online asynchronous observation, or observation through a learning action cell (LAC). A school that must move observations outside the prescribed quarters needs the approval of the SDS. Rescheduling is also allowed in special cases such as calamities, pregnancy, illness or injury, and teachers hired after the first observation window, with the approving authority’s approval.

The March 2026 guidance adds a rule on the observers’ manner. They must keep the process “developmental and supportive in nature, emphasizing strengths and professional growth rather than punitive judgment”.

How PMES ratings are computed

Converting COT scores to PMES ratings

The COT rubric has nine levels, and each career stage uses a range of five levels. The COT score is converted to the PMES 5-point rating with this table (Table 13 of DM 089, with the career stages as in the table above).

For a repeating COI, DM 089 averages the two converted ratings. Its own example is a Teacher III with COT scores of 6 and 5. These convert to 5 and 4, which average 4.500, a rating of 5 (Outstanding). A Master Teacher II with COT scores of 6 and 7 gets 3 and 4, which average 3.500, a rating of 4 (Very Satisfactory). For SY 2025-2026 only, the March 2026 guidance let a teacher with two observations choose the higher rating for each COI instead of the average.

Rating NCOIs and competencies

NCOIs are rated on the PMES 5-point scale from evidence of practice that the teacher presents and the rater verifies. DM 089 names three measures: quality (relevance, substance and alignment with the PPST), efficiency (use of time and resources) and timeliness (meeting deadlines).

Competencies use the DepEd Competencies Rating Scale, also from 5 to 1. The core competencies, anchored on Republic Act No. 6713, are self-management, professionalism and ethics, results focus, teamwork, service orientation and gender sensitivity. Master teachers and department heads are also rated on three leadership competencies: leading people, people development, and people performance management.

Weights and the final rating

DM 089 gives each of the 14 PPST indicators a weight of 6.786%, for a total of 95%. The March 2026 guidance set the remaining weights for SY 2025-2026, as the table shows.

The weighted total is then read on the scale below.

Here is an illustrative computation for a Teacher IV, made up for this guide. The e-IPCRF tool does the arithmetic in practice.

1. The 14 indicator ratings are 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4 and 5 for the nine COIs, and 4, 4, 5, 3 and 4 for the five NCOIs. Their sum is 58.
2. Part I: 58 × 0.06786 = 3.936.
3. Part II: suppose the core competency rating is 4. Then 4 × 0.05 = 0.200.
4. Final rating: 3.936 + 0.200 = 4.136, which is 4 (Very Satisfactory).

Part I carries almost all the weight, so the quality of observations and evidence decides the rating.

Means of verification and the portfolio rule

DM 089 removed the portfolio. Item 60 states: “No portfolio for performance assessments shall be collected.” Item 68 adds that submission of a physical portfolio is not required.

What remains is evidence shown during the year. Teachers are expected to “promptly show or provide evidence” of the indicators. One document may serve several indicators, so no copies per indicator are needed. Teachers who worked together on a school-wide or grade-level initiative may submit shared documentation, with each person’s role and contribution shown. Examples are team lesson plans, school-based training programs, community projects and classroom innovations.

The rater’s duty is the other half of this rule. Raters must give timely feedback on the documents presented and record it in the PMCF for the year-end evaluation. The March 2026 guidance also accepts digital sharing through email or online folders sent to official school email accounts. It encourages teachers to keep an organized personal file, physical or digital, for the “show-and-rate” process during the evaluation phase.

Promotion is a separate process with its own rules; How to Be Reclassified to Teacher IV to VII in DepEd covers them. DepEd Order No. 034, s. 2025 lets applicants for reclassification use means of verification (MOVs) from their RPMS-PPST or PMES records of the last three rating periods. It also advises them to organize and annotate their documents for the application. A school head should explain this difference to teachers, so that no one builds a performance portfolio that the PMES does not ask for.

Who rates whom: the ratee-rater-approving authority matrix

DM 089 sets the matrix in its Table 18.

DO 024, s. 2025 supports this division of work. It states that master teachers serve as raters of teacher performance under the PMES-PPST. It makes the school head the rater of all master teachers, whatever their rank. It also asks school heads to design the teachers’ program so that master teachers have time for coaching and mentoring.

The school head therefore has two roles. In a small elementary school with no master teacher, the school head rates every teacher. In a large school, the school head rates the master teachers and approves the ratings that they and the department heads give. Both roles require the same knowledge of the tools.

The school head’s duties as rater, phase by phase

The list below puts the duties in DM 089 and the March 2026 guidance in order, with a few practical steps added. It names the document for each step.

1. Before classes open (Phase I). Orient teachers on the year’s 14 indicators and the PMES tools for their career stage. Guide the self-assessment of new teachers and, in the first year of a cycle, of all teachers. Documents: PMES tools, SAT.
2. First month of classes (Phase I). Agree with each teacher on the IDP and on the dates of both full-period observations. Prepare the IS Plan for the teachers you rate, and review the IS Plans of the master teachers and department heads who rate teachers. Documents: IDP, IS Plan, IPCRF.
3. Every week (Phase II). Conduct walkthroughs and debriefings, give technical assistance, and record significant incidents and feedback. Documents: PMCF.
4. On the agreed dates (Phase II). Conduct the full-period observations under the protocol, agree on ratings with co-observers, and hold the post-observation conference within three days. Documents: COT Observation Notes Form, Rating Sheet, Inter-Observer Agreement Form.
5. When teachers show NCOI evidence (Phase II). Look at it, give feedback, and record both. Documents: PMCF.
6. Five months after the opening of classes (Phase III). Hold the mid-year review with each teacher. Calibrate targets if needed. Documents: IPCRF, PMCF.
7. After the last day of classes (Phases III and IV). Hold the year-end review, finalize ratings, and verify the teacher’s e-IPCRF entries as rater or approving authority. Agree on the annual IDP. Documents: e-IPCRF, IDP.
8. Before the next school year (Phase IV). Use the ratings for recognition and nominations. Combine the IDPs into the school’s training and LAC plan for the next year. See that each e-IPCRF is uploaded to the online system. Documents: IDPs, SIP, LAC plan.

The guide to instructional supervision in this series explains how to build the IS Plan and run walkthroughs. This guide stays with the rating side.

The mid-year and year-end review conferences

DM 089 calls for review and discussion at mid-year and at year-end, and a post-observation conference after each rated observation. These conversations decide whether a teacher sees the rating as fair. A school head can run each review in six steps.

1. Prepare the evidence. Bring the COT rating sheets, the PMCF entries and the documents the teacher has shown. Read them before the meeting.
2. Start with the teacher’s view. Ask the teacher to rate his or her own progress on each indicator and to say why.
3. Compare with the evidence. Go indicator by indicator. Where your rating differs, show the note, document or incident that supports it.
4. Agree, or record the disagreement. If the teacher shows evidence you had not seen, consider it. If you still disagree, record both positions and the reasons.
5. Set the next steps. At mid-year, agree on one or two practices to work on and the support you will give. At year-end, agree on the IDP priorities.
6. Close with the record. Summarize what was agreed and enter it in the PMCF or the IPCRF, so that both of you work from the same record.

The mid-year review is formative by design. A teacher who leaves it knowing exactly what to improve, and what help will come, is more likely to improve before the year-end rating.

Development planning: the IDP, LAC sessions and training

The PMES links rating to development at three points: the IDP and the IS Plan in Phase I, the monitoring of PD in Phase II, and the annual IDP aligned with the SIP in Phase IV. The school head’s task is to combine the IDPs into a school plan.

Under DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, each term of the three-term calendar ends with an End-of-Term Block. Two days of that block are set aside for a 16-hour In-Service Training for Teachers (INSET), and the shared needs in the IDPs can shape it. If eight of twelve teachers list the same indicator as a need, that indicator should shape the school’s LAC sessions under DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016. Walkthroughs should then check whether the practice reaches the classroom. Needs that only one or two teachers share call for coaching, mentoring or outside training instead. The guide to learning action cells explains how to plan these sessions.

DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, the new lesson planning policy, connects to the PMES in the same way. Item 34 directs four central offices, including the National Educators’ Academy of the Philippines (NEAP), to work on the PMES. They are to strengthen “the instructional leadership and coaching dimensions of the Performance Management and Evaluation System for teachers to ensure that teachers receive sustained professional support”. It also encourages frequent, non-rated walkthroughs of about 10 to 15 minutes, as DM 089 does. The guide to DO 016, s. 2026 covers its lesson plan review.

How a school head gives fair, evidence-based ratings

DM 089 gives the rules for evidence. Ratings for COIs rest only on what the Observation Notes Form records. Observers who disagree decide by consensus, not by average. NCOIs rest on evidence the rater has verified. A fair rater also avoids the common rating errors listed below.

Two more habits matter. First, keep coaching and rating apart: coach in walkthroughs and conferences, and do not help with the lesson plan for the rated lesson itself. Second, rate only a complete lesson. DM 089 requires rated observations to cover the entire class period, so a lesson cut short by an emergency drill needs a new date.

Critical incidents as evidence

A critical incident is a specific, observed event in which a person’s behavior was clearly effective or clearly ineffective. The method comes from John C. Flanagan’s critical incident technique, published in 1954. DM 089 asks the rater to record significant incidents observed, and the feedback given, in the PMCF.

Incident records make the rating less dependent on memory. A year-end rating based on notes from July, October and January is fairer than one based on the last week. Incidents also make feedback specific enough to act on.

A useful incident record has five parts:

1. The date, class and activity.
2. What the teacher said or did, in observable terms.
3. What the learners did as a result.
4. The PPST indicator it relates to.
5. The feedback given and the next step agreed.

Compare two records of the same visit to a Grade 5 mathematics class.

The second record supports a rating, a coaching conversation and the teacher’s reflection, and it explains the rating if a teacher questions it. Record effective incidents as often as ineffective ones, in the same neutral way.

Coaching teachers with the GROW model

The GROW model, attributed to John Whitmore and colleagues and described in Whitmore’s book Coaching for Performance, gives a coaching conversation four steps.

GROW fits the post-observation conference and the mid-year review, because the teacher leaves with a step that he or she chose. The guide to instructional supervision gives a full GROW conversation.

Coaching and mentoring are different

DM 089 asks raters to coach and to mentor, and it gives master teachers a “dual function as classroom teacher and mentor”. The two are related but not the same.

Coaching teachers at different performance levels

Teachers at different levels need different conversations. The table is a practical guide, not a DepEd rule.

The low performer needs the most visits, but not the most criticism. Keep the conversation on two or three indicators, agree on visible steps, and record progress in the PMCF. If the year ends with a low rating, the record should show the support the teacher received.

How school heads themselves are rated

DM 089 covers teachers only. It names school heads as raters and approving authorities, and it lists head teachers with a teaching load among the ratees that a school head rates. The July 2024 deferment covered all school-based personnel, school heads included. DM 017, s. 2025 lifted the suspension for teachers.

The base rules for a school head’s own rating are in DO 2, s. 2015, which has not been replaced. Under that order, the head of office accomplishes the Office Performance Commitment and Review Form (OPCRF), which sets out the office’s key result areas, objectives and performance indicators. The order states: “The OPCRF shall be equivalent to the IPCRF of the head of office”. Its rater matrix names the ASDS as the principal’s rater and the SDS as the approving authority.

DO 024, s. 2025 also refers to the school OPCRF. It requires an assistant school head designate to use the generic IPCRF, with targets aligned with the school OPCRF. As of October 2026, no national memorandum sets the current OPCRF process for school heads. Follow your SDO’s issuance on the OPCRF for the year. The March 2024 interim guidelines on office performance planning and division practice since then are explained in OPCRF for DepEd School Heads in 2026: What Applies Now.

The Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II) recommends an OPCRF that puts classroom observation and coaching ahead of compliance work. The EDCOM II guide in this blog summarizes that recommendation. Teacher Workload and Accountability covers that recommendation, EDCOM II’s findings on teacher workload and what the Final Report means by redefining teacher accountability.

What may change for SY 2026-2027

DM 089 states that it is effective for SY 2025-2026, SY 2026-2027 and SY 2027-2028. The March 2026 guidance, however, says that a separate issuance will provide comprehensive guidelines on the PMES beginning SY 2026-2027. As of October 26, 2026, DepEd had not issued it.

DepEd has described the direction of the work. In January 2026, it invited comments on draft guidelines on flexible and alternative classroom observations for teacher development and performance evaluation. In March 2026, DepEd reported that it was developing a teacher growth and performance policy with four parts weighted 25% each. The parts were learner evidence, professional artifacts, collaboration and professional engagement, and a single classroom observation. These were proposals, not rules.

Two practical cautions follow. First, check the DepEd memoranda page and your SDO’s issuances before you plan the year’s observations. Second, note that DM 089 schedules observations by quarter, while DO 009, s. 2026 moved SY 2026-2027 to a three-term calendar. Ask your SDO how the observation windows apply to terms until DepEd issues the new guidelines.

PPSSH strands and Career Stage 1 indicators for the PMES

The PPSSH, adopted by DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, describes Career Stage 1 as the stage of aspiring school heads. The PMES work in this guide maps to four strands.

Strand 3.3 needs a careful reading. The indicator is about feedback from learners, parents and other stakeholders, not only the rater’s own feedback. A school head meets it by bringing that feedback into the PMES conversation: what learners could do in the observed lesson, what their work shows, and what parents report. The PPSSH guide on the app and the blog guides to PPSSH Domain 3 and PPSSH Domain 4 explain these strands further.

Practice: how the NASH may test this

DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025 says the NASH covers conceptual and situational critical-thinking questions aligned with the PPSSH. It uses the SOLO (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome) taxonomy as its framework. An item on the PMES is likely to describe a rating, an observation or a review conference and ask for the best action. The best answer usually follows the current rule and also serves the teacher’s growth. In the items below, answers that bring back old habits (a portfolio, an average of observers’ ratings, a rating from memory) or that treat rating as punishment earn fewer points. The three items below are our own, written in the format of the NASH practice questions with answers.

Question 1

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

A newly designated school head finds that the previous school head required every teacher to submit a thick binder of documents each year for the IPCRF rating. Teachers ask whether they should prepare the binder again. Which response best reflects the current PMES for teachers?

• A. Keep the binder, since a complete set of documents per indicator remains the safest proof of performance under the multi-year PMES guidelines.
• B. Drop the binder, and ask teachers to show evidence during the year so that the rater can give feedback and record it before the year-end review.
• C. Drop the binder, and rate teachers at year-end on the rater’s own general impression of their work, since no documents are required.
• D. Drop the paper binder, and ask every teacher to upload one complete folder of documents for all the indicators at the end of the year instead.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). It values evidence, which is right, but it keeps the portfolio that DM 089 removed and the copies per indicator that it says are not needed.
• B (3 points, Relational). It applies the no-portfolio rule and links it to the rater’s duty to give and record timely feedback on documents, which the year-end review then uses.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). It misreads the rule. The PMES removed the portfolio, not the evidence, and a rating from general impression is not evidence-based.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). It drops the paper and uses digital sharing, which the March 2026 guidance accepts, but it still collects a year-end portfolio and leaves no feedback during the year.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand how the performance management system is implemented. DM 089 states that no portfolio for performance assessments shall be collected, but it still requires teachers to show evidence and raters to give feedback recorded in the PMCF. The digital folder in D changes the format but not the practice, which is why it earns only partial credit.

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 60, 61 and 68; DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001.

Question 2

Indicator 4.4.1, Performance management. Career Stage 1, Situational, Difficult.

You and a master teacher observed a Grade 8 science teacher’s full-period lesson. On one indicator, you gave a COT score of 4 and the master teacher gave 6. The master teacher suggests recording 5 so that the ratings can be finished today. What should you do?

• A. Record 5 as suggested, because the average of two observers’ scores is the fairest way to combine their judgments of the same lesson.
• B. Record your own score of 4, because the school head is the higher-ranking observer and the approving authority signs the final rating.
• C. Ask the teacher which score seems fairer, and record that score, because the teacher knows best what happened during the lesson.
• D. Meet with the master teacher, compare your observation notes against the rubric, and agree on a final score that the recorded evidence supports.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). It wants a fair combination, but DM 089 states that the final rating shall not be an average of the individual ratings.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Rank does not decide a rating. The rule calls for reasoned consensus based on observed practice.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). The teacher’s reflection belongs in the post-observation conference, but the observers must decide the rating from their notes.
• D (3 points, Relational). It follows the inter-observer agreement rule and ties the final rating to the notes and the rubric, which also makes it explainable to the teacher.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.4.1 asks for an understanding of how the performance management system works in practice. DM 089 requires observers with different ratings to meet and decide a final rating “through reasoned and consensual judgment” based on the Observation Notes Form and the COT rubric. A rating that the evidence supports is also the one that helps the teacher improve.

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 55 to 58.

Question 3

Indicator 4.5.1, Professional development of school personnel. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

At the mid-year review, seven of your twelve teachers are rated Satisfactory on the indicator about teaching strategies for literacy and numeracy. Their IDPs list other priorities. The division offers one seat in a three-day seminar on the topic. What is the most appropriate response?

• A. Revise the IDPs with the seven teachers, plan LAC sessions and walkthroughs on the indicator in the IS Plan, and send one teacher to the seminar to share it.
• B. Send the most senior of the seven teachers to the seminar and ask the others to wait for next year’s training, when the division may offer more seats.
• C. Leave the IDPs as written, since they were agreed in Phase I, and remind the seven teachers that the year-end rating will check the indicator again.
• D. Ask the seven teachers to attend online courses on their own time, and check their certificates at the year-end review as evidence of improvement.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (3 points, Relational). It links the mid-year result to the IDP, the IS Plan, school-based LAC sessions and follow-up walkthroughs, and uses the single seminar seat for the whole group.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). It uses one resource, but six teachers get no support and the choice rests on seniority, not need.
• C (0 points, Prestructural). It treats the mid-year review as a warning, not as a formative step, and ignores a clear shared need.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). It offers development, but it shifts the burden to teachers and measures attendance, not changed practice.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.5.1 asks the aspiring school head to understand how professional development enhances strengths and addresses performance gaps. DM 089 makes the mid-year review formative, requires the IS Plan to include PD opportunities based on IDPs and observed gaps, and allows targets to be calibrated at mid-year. A need shared by most teachers fits the LAC under DO 35, s. 2016.

Indicator 4.5.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of professional development in enhancing strengths and in addressing performance gaps among school personnel.

Sources: DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025, items 27 to 30, 64 to 68 and 88 to 90; DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016.

More items on all five domains are in the timed practice sets on the app.

Frequently asked questions

What is the PMES in DepEd?

The PMES, or Performance Management and Evaluation System, is DepEd’s system for rating and developing public school teachers’ performance. DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025 sets it for SY 2025-2026 to SY 2027-2028. It rates 14 PPST indicators a year through classroom observation and other evidence, plus core competencies, in a four-phase cycle.

What is the difference between PMES and RPMS?

The PMES uses the same four phases as the RPMS but asks for less paperwork and adds planned coaching. It rates 14 indicators instead of 15 objectives and requires two full-period observations instead of four. It collects no portfolio, uses four career-stage tools, and adds the rater’s IS Plan and non-rated walkthroughs.

How many classroom observations are required under the PMES?

DM 089, s. 2025 requires two full-period classroom observations a year: one in the 1st or 2nd quarter and one in the 3rd or 4th quarter. For SY 2025-2026 only, DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001 required one. Non-rated walkthroughs of about 10 to 15 minutes are additional and do not count toward the rating.

Who is the rater of teachers under DM 089, s. 2025?

Where the school has them, a master teacher, department head or assistant school head rates teachers, and the school head approves the ratings. The school head rates master teachers and head teachers with a teaching load. The school head also rates teachers directly where the school has none of those raters, and the ASDS then approves.

Is a portfolio required in the DepEd PMES?

No. DM 089, s. 2025 states that no portfolio for performance assessments shall be collected. Teachers show evidence during the year, one document may serve several indicators, and the rater records feedback in the PMCF.

More on school leadership

This post is part of a series on what a school head does under the DepEd rules in force today. The other posts, in reading order:

• RA 9155 Duties of DepEd School Heads: 12 Areas Explained
• Leadership vs Management for School Heads: Five Practices
• DepEd Revised SBM: DO 007, s. 2024 and the Self-Assessment
• DepEd School Improvement Plan (SIP): Steps, AIP and SRC
• Root Cause Analysis for the DepEd School Improvement Plan
• Organizational Diagnosis Models in Schools: 7S, SWOT, PESTLE
• Change Management in Schools: A Guide for DepEd School Heads
• DepEd ILAW Lesson Plan, DO 016, s. 2026: School Head’s Role
• DepEd Grading System, DO 015, s. 2026: School Head’s Role
• DepEd Contextualization, Localization and Indigenization
• DepEd Instructional Supervision: Observing and Coaching
• DepEd Learning Action Cell (LAC) Guidelines: DO 35, s. 2016
• DepEd Enhanced ALS, Inclusive Education and Special Programs
• Human Resource Management for DepEd School Heads
• DepEd School MOOE: Allowable Expenses and Liquidation
• RA 6713 for DepEd School Heads: Ethics and Internal Control
• Leadership Styles of School Heads: What the Evidence Says
• Instructional Leadership for DepEd School Heads
• Principal, Head Teacher or Teacher-in-Charge in DepEd
• OPCRF for DepEd School Heads in 2026: What Applies Now
• RA 9155 at 25: Why Shared Governance Has Not Happened
• On the app: The roles of a school head, the six roles in one guide, and the PPSSH guide

Sources

• DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025: Multi-Year PMES for Teachers, SY 2025-2026 to 2027-2028
• Memorandum DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001: PMES Guidance for SY 2025-2026
• DepEd Memorandum No. 017, s. 2025, Interim Guidelines for the DepEd PMES for Teachers in the School Year 2024-2025
• DepEd Memorandum No. 037, s. 2024: Task Force on the RPMS and Teachers’ Workload
• DepEd announcement of July 23, 2024 on the deferment of the RPMS for school-based personnel
• DepEd Memorandum No. 008, s. 2023, Multi-Year Guidelines on the RPMS-PPST
• DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015, Guidelines on the Establishment and Implementation of the RPMS in DepEd
• DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2017, National Adoption and Implementation of the PPST
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2025, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Expanded Career Progression System and DepEd Order No. 034, s. 2025
• DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, Guidelines on Lesson Planning and Learning Design
• DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Three-Term School Calendar in Basic Education
• DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016, The Learning Action Cell as a K to 12 Basic Education Program School-Based Continuing Professional Development Strategy
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the PPSSH
• DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025: Administration of the NASH for Fiscal Year 2025
• Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 2012, Guidelines in the Establishment and Implementation of Agency Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS), as cited in DM 089, s. 2025
• DepEd, draft guidelines on flexible and alternative classroom observations, January 2026, and news release of March 5, 2026
• Republic Act No. 6713, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
• Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327-358.
• Whitmore, J. Coaching for Performance. London: Nicholas Brealey, first published 1992.

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025; Memorandum DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001; DepEd Memoranda No. 017, s. 2025, No. 037, s. 2024 and No. 008, s. 2023; DepEd Orders No. 2, s. 2015, No. 024 and No. 034, s. 2025, and No. 009 and No. 016, s. 2026; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020 and the PPSSH; Flanagan (1954); Whitmore, Coaching for Performance.