OPCRF for DepEd School Heads in 2026: What Applies Now

The OPCRF for school heads, the Office Performance Commitment and Review Form, is the form on which a DepEd principal, head teacher or teacher-in-charge commits the school’s targets for the year and is rated against them. School heads’ performance management is in transition. This guide sets out what the issuances in force on October 30, 2026 establish about the OPCRF, from DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015 to Executive Order No. 61, s. 2024 and the Performance-Based Bonus (PBB), and says where they leave a question open.

It is written for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH), for newly designated school heads, and for teachers-in-charge (TICs), whom the 2024 rating matrix lists with principals as OPCRF ratees. The Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), adopted through DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, asks Career Stage 1 school heads to “Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the implementation of the performance management system in improving school personnel and office performance” (indicator 4.4.1). The OPCRF is the office half of that system. The teachers’ half has its own guide, DepEd PMES for Teachers: DM 089, s. 2025 for School Heads, and this guide does not repeat it.

Key points

• The OPCRF is the school head’s own performance form. DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015 has the head of office accomplish it and states that “The OPCRF shall be equivalent to the IPCRF of the head of office”. The Assistant Schools Division Superintendent (ASDS) rates the school head, and the Schools Division Superintendent (SDS) approves.
• The national form in use is the revised OPCRF of 2024. Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2024-0586 of March 27, 2024 weights it 60% for commitments to organizational outcomes, 20% for innovations and interventions, 15% for organizational effectiveness, and 2.5% each for leadership and core behavioral competencies.
• EO 61, s. 2024 suspended the government-wide performance and bonus systems, not DepEd’s RPMS. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) advised that the suspension “is deemed not to affect” each agency’s Strategic Performance Management System, of which DepEd’s RPMS is one. DepEd then chose to suspend school-level performance management for School Year (SY) 2024-2025, school heads included.
• Teachers moved to the PMES; school heads have no national replacement yet. DepEd Memorandum No. 017, s. 2025 lifted the suspension for teachers only. As of October 2026, no national memorandum has lifted it for school heads, but division memoranda show the OPCRF back in use for SY 2025-2026.
• Divisions fill the gap in different ways. Muntinlupa names four KRAs, Bulacan issues its own template with evidence in newsletter format, and Baguio has a peer school head, a teacher, a non-teaching staff member and a PTA member rate competencies. The Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II) finds that the principals’ OPCR “lacks standardization across the system”.
• The rating still affects pay and promotion. The FY 2024 PBB guidelines of July 2026 require at least a Very Satisfactory individual rating. For reclassification to School Principal, DepEd’s career progression order counts the PMES IPCRF or the school’s OPCRF, whichever applies.
• A PPSSH-based system for school heads is being drafted. In November 2025 DepEd called a workshop to draft “PMES-PPSSH tools” for school heads. EDCOM II recommends an OPCRF that puts instructional leadership first.

What is the OPCRF for school heads?

DO 2, s. 2015, dated February 6, 2015, set up the Results-based Performance Management System (RPMS) in DepEd. It adopts the CSC’s Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 2012, and defines the RPMS as “the DepEd-contextualized SPMS”. The order applies the same four-phase cycle to offices and to individuals: performance planning and commitment, performance monitoring and coaching, performance review and evaluation, and performance rewarding and development planning.

The order defines the OPCRF as “the form that shall reflect the office commitments and performance, which shall be accomplished by the head of office”. In a school, the head of office is the school head. DO 2, s. 2015 has the analysis of “the OPCRF for schools” sent to the School Effectiveness Division, and the analysis of a school’s IPCRFs kept by the “Office of the School Head, copy furnished the SDOs” (paragraph 58). Paragraph 18 adds the rule that matters most for a school head: “The OPCRF shall be equivalent to the IPCRF of the head of office.” The school’s office rating is the school head’s individual rating.

DO 2, s. 2015 sets three to five key result areas (KRAs) per office, three objectives per KRA rated on a five-point scale, and an April-to-March cycle for schools; competencies are monitored “for developmental purposes only”, outside the rating. The 2024 revision, described below, keeps the four phases but sets new school timelines and brings competencies into the rating.

OPCRF vs IPCRF

Two school leadership roles are easy to confuse here. The 2024 OPCRF memorandum says assistant school principals “shall likewise use the revised OPCRF”. DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2025, on the Expanded Career Progression (ECP) system, says that an assistant school head designate, a teacher designated to the role, uses “the generic IPCRF to reflect their performance targets and accomplishments as Assistant School Head Designate aligned with the School OPCRF”. The guide to principals, head teachers and teachers-in-charge explains who counts as a school head and how TICs are designated.

School heads’ performance management, 2024 to 2026: the timeline

The table lists the issuances in order.

What EO 61, s. 2024 suspended, and what it did not

EO 61, s. 2024 was signed on June 3, 2024. Section 1 reads: “The implementation of AO No. 25 (s. 2011) and EO No. 80 (s. 2012), and all other relevant issuances related thereto, is hereby suspended immediately pending review of the RBPMS and PBI System.” AO 25, s. 2011 had set up a “unified and integrated Results-Based Performance Management System (RBPMS)” across executive departments and agencies. EO 80, s. 2012 had set up the PBI System of the PEI and the PBB.

EO 61 created a Technical Working Group (TWG), chaired by the Secretary of Budget and Management, to “study and review the RBPMS and PBI System” and report within six months.

EO 61 does not name DepEd’s RPMS. The two systems have similar names but different subjects. DepEd’s July 2024 memorandum quotes a CSC letter of June 27, 2024 that draws the line:

“The SPMS should be distinguished from the RBPMS as the former is a performance management system that focuses on individual’s performance and its alignment with the agency’s organizational vision, mission, and goals, while the latter is focused on performance management of government agencies. Accordingly, the suspension of the RBPMS and PBI System and other relevant issuances related thereto pursuant to EO No. 61, s. 2024, is deemed not to affect the implementation of the SPMS as required by law (EO No. 292).”

DepEd’s RPMS is its version of the SPMS, so EO 61 did not suspend the RPMS or the OPCRF. What it did suspend was the bonus framework of EO 80, which the PBB section below takes up.

The July 2024 suspension at the school level

DepEd suspended school-level performance management itself, by Memorandum DM-OSEC-2024-01 of July 22, 2024, which Secretary Sonny Angara signed “With reference to” EO 61 (DM 017, s. 2025 cites it as DM-OSEC-2024-001). It suspended the RPMS “for all DepEd school-based personnel for the upcoming SY 2024-2025”. Every school-level activity, from planning to evaluation, “of the school and individual personnel (i.e., school heads, teachers, and non-teaching personnel at the school level), shall be suspended until further notice.”

The reasons given were to let personnel, “particularly teachers”, prepare for the opening of classes, and to review school-level RPMS “aligned with the objectives of EO No. 61” so as to reduce teachers’ tasks. Three things stayed in place:

1. The results still counted. OPCRF and IPCRF ratings “remain as requirements” for HR actions and benefits. The list includes step increments, mid-year and year-end bonuses, promotion, awards, educational support and training.
2. SY 2023-2024 still had to be finished. The review of the school’s SY 2023-2024 OPCRF ran until September 15, 2024, and school heads submitted it to the SDO by September 30, 2024.
3. Offices above the school were not covered. RPMS for FY 2024 continued for non-school-based personnel in the Central Office, Regional Offices and SDOs.

DepEd’s announcement of July 23, 2024 reported the same deferment, and DepEd Memorandum No. 037, s. 2024 created a task force to review the RPMS. The suspension was therefore DepEd’s own decision, made with EO 61 in view. EO 61 did not require it.

Teachers moved to the PMES; school heads did not

DM 017, s. 2025, dated February 7, 2025, lifted the suspension, but only for teachers. Its paragraph 3 says the interim guidelines “shall lift the suspension of the implementation of the performance management system for teachers per DM-OSEC-2024-001”, and paragraph 4 limits its coverage to teachers. Paragraph 2 adds that “the comprehensive guidelines for the revision of DO No. 2, s. 2015 are underway”. DM 089, s. 2025 then set the multi-year Performance Management and Evaluation System (PMES) for teachers from SY 2025-2026 to SY 2027-2028. It names school heads only as raters and approving authorities.

DO 2, s. 2015 has not been replaced. As of October 30, 2026, no DepEd order issued in 2026 deals with performance management.

Is the RPMS still suspended for school heads?

This is the question the issuances leave open. As of October 30, 2026, no national memorandum expressly lifts the July 2024 suspension for school heads, and none sets the OPCRF process for SY 2025-2026 or SY 2026-2027.

Three division memoranda, compared in a later section, put the OPCRF back to work for SY 2025-2026. SDO Muntinlupa held an “OPCRF Development Workshop for School Heads: 1st RPMS Cycle Implementation, SY 2025-2026”, “In line with DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015”. SDO Bulacan issued an OPCRF that “is consistent with” DM-OUHROD-2024-0586, and SDO Baguio issued guidance on the electronic OPCRF.

The suspension memorandum names SY 2024-2025 but also says “until further notice”. In these divisions, the OPCRF resumed for SY 2025-2026 under DO 2, s. 2015 and the 2024 interim guidelines. Follow your SDO’s current issuance, and keep the national guidelines at hand.

The revised OPCRF (2024): parts, weights and scoring

Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2024-0586, dated March 27, 2024 and issued “Pursuant to DepEd Order (DO) No. 2, s. 2015”, contains the “Interim Guidelines for the Office Performance Planning and Assessment for FY 2024 Onwards” (Annex B) and the revised OPCRF (Annex A). It ties office commitments to the outcomes in the General Appropriations Act (GAA), the Basic Education Development Plan (BEDP) and the MATATAG Agenda. Paragraph 6 names the users, including “heads of schools in the elementary and secondary levels”.

The revised form has four parts. Parts I and II carry the weights; Parts III and IV summarize the rating and set the plans.

Two changes from DO 2, s. 2015 stand out. Competencies now carry 5% of the rating, where the 2015 order kept them out of it. Part I-C also ties the school’s rating to the three areas the guidelines call “PBB-based oversight requirements”. Table 4 of the guidelines defines them:

• Financial stewardship: use of the budget “in accordance with the quarterly disbursement program with no overdraft/deficit/disallowance from oversight agencies”.
• Process improvement: “streamlined core processes and management of service provisioning of frontline and other office deliverables”, for ease of doing business or digitalization, based on the Citizen’s Charter.
• Client satisfaction: the resolution and compliance rate on Hotline #8888 and the Contact Center ng Bayan complaints.

The guide to DepEd school MOOE covers the school’s side of financial stewardship.

Key result areas and objectives

For school heads, the guidelines point to their own annex. Paragraph 5(c) reads: “For Heads of Schools in the Elementary and Secondary Levels, refer to the prescribed KRAs that are aligned with the School Based Management (SBM) domains (Annex D).”

The rest of Phase I applies to every head of office:

1. Attribute each KRA to organizational outcomes (paragraph 6): the five programs in DepEd’s GAA, the four BEDP pillars (Access, Equity, Quality, and Resiliency and Well-Being) with the enabling mechanisms on governance, and the four components of the MATATAG Agenda.
2. Set objectives (paragraph 7). “Setting at least three (3) objectives per KRA is highly recommended.” Objectives are “action verbs written in past tense” and follow the SMART criteria.
3. Set the timeline (paragraph 8) with the Planning Office and the School Planning Team, aligned with the “Annual Improvement Plan for schools/CLCs”, that is, the AIP.
4. Weight each objective and write its target (paragraphs 9 and 10). The weights within a part add up to that part’s weight. Each target has a value and a description, such as “2% decrease (trend)” for “Dropout rate”, one of the guidelines’ own examples.
5. Choose the measures and the evidence (paragraphs 11 and 12): quality, efficiency and timeliness (QET), each on a five-point scale, “provided that Quality is always measured”, and means of verification “certified by authorized officials/personnel”.
6. Sign the agreement (paragraph 14). The signed OPCR form becomes “the basis for monitoring and assessment”.

How the rating is computed

Each objective is rated from 5 to 1 on each of its measures, and the ratings are averaged: (Q + E + T) ÷ 3, or ÷ 2 for an objective with two measures. The average times the objective’s weight gives its weighted average, and the weighted averages add up to each part’s score, written to three decimal places. Each competency is rated as the average of its five behavioral indicators. The average of the three leadership competencies, times 2.5%, gives Part II-A, and the average of the six core behavioral competencies, times 2.5%, gives Part II-B (paragraph 29). The overall score is Part I-A + Part I-B + Part I-C + Part II-A + Part II-B, read on the RPMS rating table.

Competencies use a different five-point scale: Role Model (5), Consistently Demonstrated (4), Most of the Time Demonstrated (3), Sometimes Demonstrated (2) and Rarely Demonstrated (1).

An illustrative computation, made up for this guide: one Part I-A objective weighted 10% and rated Q = 4, E = 5, T = 4 averages 4.333, for a weighted average of 0.433. Suppose all of Part I-A scores 2.700 (of a possible 3.000), Part I-B 0.880 (of 1.000), Part I-C 0.600 (of 0.750), and the two competency parts 0.100 and 0.110. The overall score is 4.390, which is 4, Very Satisfactory.

Part I carries 95% of the weight, so the objectives and their evidence decide the rating.

The four phases at the school level

The guidelines keep the four phases of DO 2, s. 2015 and give schools their own timeline (Table 1 of Annex B).

Phase II has a fixed rhythm. “Quarterly rater-ratee checkpoint meetings shall be conducted,” and the rater and ratee record and sign significant incidents in the PMCF (paragraphs 18 and 19).

Phase III allows one correction. At the mid-year review, “only if the situation warrants, a one-time calibration” of targets, weights, timeline and performance indicators is allowed (paragraph 22). The exceptional cases include changes in strategic direction, changes in rules outside the office’s control, and “natural and/or man-made calamities” (paragraph 23). The rater and ratee agree on the change in the Performance Calibration Form, the approving authority approves it, and it takes effect “only … upon approval of the concerned PMT” (paragraph 24). The final rating “depends solely on the year-end performance assessment” (paragraph 25). Appeals follow DO 2, s. 2015, and a rating under appeal “shall not be considered final” (paragraph 32).

Who rates the school head

Table 9 of the interim guidelines sets the matrix for schools.

Where no applicable rater or approving authority exists, “the next higher official shall perform such function.” For principals, the matrix is the same as in DO 2, s. 2015, which names the ASDS as the principal’s rater and the SDS as approving authority. The 2024 table adds officers-in-charge and TICs by name.

What goes into a school head’s OPCRF now: three divisions

With no national memorandum setting the process for SY 2025-2026, the division memoranda show what school heads are actually asked to do. They differ.

The Baguio timeline shows how a full cycle is scheduled in one division. School heads self-rate and upload MOVs from March 9 to April 30, 2026. Peers, teachers, staff and PTA members rate competencies from May 4 to 29. The SDO’s Performance Management Team validates online in June, the ASDS validates as rater from July 1 to 10, and the SDS approves from July 13 to 17, 2026.

Two cautions follow from the table. First, the Baguio memorandum prints Part I-C as 20%, which would make the five parts add up to 105%. The national form gives Part I-C 15%, so check the weights in your own template before you compute. Second, each division sets its own template and procedure. EDCOM II describes the same pattern: “for principals, the OPCR lacks standardization across the system, with SDOs permitted to conduct workshops to contextualize objectives, performance indicators, and other implementation details” (Final Report, p. 357). Use your SDO’s KRAs, and keep the objectives tied to your own school’s plan.

How the OPCRF connects to the SIP, the SBM self-assessment and the teachers’ PMES

The SIP and the annual implementation plan

DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 allows SIP work to count. Paragraph 6 reads: “The participation and involvement of the school head, teachers, and staff in the planning and implementation of the SIP and SRC may be included in the Results-Based Performance Management System (RPMS) as performance objectives under corresponding Key Result Areas. It can be incorporated in the Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form (IPCRF) of teachers and staff or in the Office Performance Commitment and Review Form (OPCRF) of the school head.”

The word is “may”, so the SIP is not required in the OPCRF. The 2024 interim guidelines tie the two closer in one place: the timeline of office objectives is aligned with the “Annual Improvement Plan for schools/CLCs”, the guidelines’ name for what DO 44, s. 2015 calls the Annual Implementation Plan (AIP). Muntinlupa’s workshop made a review of the SIP part of the pre-work. A practical reading is to write the SIP’s priority improvement areas as Part I-A objectives, with measurable targets and a timeline that matches the AIP.

The guide to the DepEd School Improvement Plan covers the SIP steps, and the guide to root cause analysis for the SIP covers how to choose those priorities. The NASH Reviewer policy review of the SIP finds that DO 44 “allows, but does not require” SIP work in the school head’s performance commitments.

The SBM self-assessment

DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024 sets six SBM dimensions: Curriculum and Teaching; Learning Environment; Leadership; Governance and Accountability; Human Resource and Team Development; and Finance and Resource Management and Mobilization. The school head “leads the monitoring and evaluation of the continuous improvement of the various SBM dimensions through the process of self-assessment”. The results “shall be incorporated into the school’s strategic and implementation plans”. The order lists DO 2, s. 2015 among its references.

The national OPCRF guidelines prescribe school KRAs “aligned with the School Based Management (SBM) domains”, which DO 007, s. 2024 calls dimensions. The calendars fit too. DO 007, s. 2024 places the self-assessment ideally in the fourth grading period. DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026 replaced quarters with three terms and does not re-time the self-assessment, so the nearest equivalent is the last term; check your SDO’s schedule. The year-end OPCRF assessment comes after the last day of classes. The same evidence can serve both. The guide to the revised SBM explains the self-assessment checklist.

The teachers’ PMES and the school’s other forms

The school head’s OPCRF and the teachers’ PMES meet in three places. First, the school head rates master teachers and head teachers with a teaching load, and rates or approves the ratings of teachers. Second, DM 089, s. 2025 requires each teacher’s annual Individual Development Plan to reflect “Alignment with the School Improvement Plan (SIP) and the school’s capacity-building priorities” (item 89). Third, assistant school head designates write targets “aligned with the School OPCRF” (DO 024, s. 2025, Enclosure No. 1, item 36(d)(vi)).

An OPCRF built from the SIP gives every IPCRF in the school a common reference. The guide to instructional supervision covers the observation and coaching that a learning-focused OPCRF would count.

The OPCRF and the Performance-Based Bonus: EO 80, EO 61 and the FY 2024 PBB

The PBB under EO 80, s. 2012, and its suspension

EO 80, s. 2012 adopted a PBI System “consisting of the Productivity Enhancement Incentive (PEI) and the Performance-Based Bonus (PBB)” from FY 2012. The PEI, of ₱5,000, was granted across the board. The PBB was “a top-up bonus”, given to personnel “in accordance with their contribution to the accomplishment of their Department’s overall targets and commitments”. EO 80 also provided that “Bureaus and individuals who receive a Below Satisfactory performance rating will not be qualified for the PBB.”

DO 2, s. 2015 made the RPMS the basis for ranking non-school-based personnel for the PBB. For school-based personnel, “the RPMS shall be used only as an appraisal tool, which shall be the basis for training and development. The granting of PBB shall be governed by the existing PBB guidelines.” Each year’s PBB guidelines therefore decide how the OPCRF counts.

EO 61 suspended EO 80 “and all other relevant issuances related thereto” pending review, so the PBB framework of EO 80 has been suspended since June 3, 2024. The OPCRF has not, since the CSC treats agency SPMS, such as DepEd’s RPMS, as outside the suspension.

The FY 2024 PBB under the EO 61 TWG’s Memorandum Circular No. 2026-1

The EO 61 TWG approved Resolution No. 2026-1 on July 2, 2026. It records that “notwithstanding the suspension of EO No. 80, s. 2012, as amended, the National Government recognizes the need to reward government employees” for FY 2024. The Office of the President approved the grant. Memorandum Circular No. 2026-1, dated July 3, 2026, sets the guidelines. Four of its rules matter to a school head.

1. The agency must qualify first. An agency becomes eligible with “an overall score of at least 70 points” across four dimensions: Performance Results, Process Results, Financial Results and Citizen/Client Satisfaction Results (item 4.1).
2. The individual needs at least Very Satisfactory. Employees “should achieve a performance rating of at least Very Satisfactory based on the agency’s Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) duly approved by the CSC” (item 7.3). The full grant needs at least nine months of service in the fiscal year (item 7.10), and shorter service is prorated (item 7.11).
3. Units at fault can be isolated. If the agency rates below 4 on any eligibility criterion, “the unit(s) and/or individual(s), including the head of the unit, that are most responsible for the said criterion shall be isolated and excluded” (item 4.1).
4. The rate follows the agency’s score. The maximum, for 100 points, is “65% of the Monthly Basic Salary (MBS) of an individual as of December 31, 2024” (item 8.1). Eligible delivery units receive the PBB “at uniform rates across the agency” (item 7.2).

Annex 1 of the circular lists DepEd’s “Schools and Learning Centers” as a unit “to be treated separately from their mother departments for the purpose of eligibility assessment”. On October 5, 2026, DepEd reported that the President had ordered faster release of the FY 2024 PBB to qualified DepEd personnel.

The circular covers FY 2024 only. It does not say which school-year rating DepEd uses for school-based personnel, whose RPMS was suspended for SY 2024-2025. As of October 30, 2026, DepEd had issued no guidance on the FY 2024 PBB for school personnel. Ask your SDO’s human resource unit which rating period it will use.

Other things the OPCRF rating decides

The bonus is not the only stake. Four other rules make the rating count:

1. HR actions and benefits. DM-OSEC-2024-01 lists the HR actions and benefits that require OPCRF and IPCRF ratings, from step increments to promotion and training.
2. Late submission. DO 2, s. 2015 makes non-submission of the OPCRF, through the employee’s fault, ground for disqualification from “promotion, training, scholarship grants, and PBB” for that period (paragraph 66).
3. Reclassification to School Principal. Enclosure No. 3 to DO 024, s. 2025, the guidelines on reclassification to School Principal positions, uses “the rating derived from the Performance Management and Evaluation System (PMES) Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form (IPCRF) or School’s Office Performance Commitment and Review Form (OPCRF), whichever is applicable” (item 34, p. 66). Applicants submit a rating of “at least Very Satisfactory” for the last complete rating period in the current position (item 6(j), p. 54). School Principal I to IV: Promotion Under the ECP covers the process and scoring. This matters to TICs and head teachers who apply; the NASH qualification standards FAQ covers the other requirements.
4. Promotion in the law. Section 9 of Republic Act No. 12288, the Career Progression System for Public School Teachers and School Leaders Act, states that the evaluation of applicants in the School Administration Line “shall consider organizational and managerial effectiveness, in terms of productivity, performance, utility, efficiency, and other requirements of the professional standards”.

What is coming: PMES-PPSSH tools and EDCOM II’s recommendations

The PMES-PPSSH drafting workshop

Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2025-3315, dated November 19, 2025 and issued by the Undersecretary for Human Resource and Organizational Development, opens: “In fulfillment of the objective to establish a systematic and aligned Performance Management and Evaluation System (PMES) for schools heads anchored on the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH)”. It called a consultation workshop to draft the PMES-PPSSH tools for December 9 to 12, 2025. The workshop was to gather field feedback on “the draft PMES-PPSSH tools”, identify gaps in “developing a coherent PMES for school heads”, and “Draft the tools to ensure development of a streamlined and effective performance evaluation for school heads in the coming school years”.

So draft tools existed by November 2025, anchored on the PPSSH as the teachers’ PMES is anchored on the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST), and meant for “the coming school years”. As of October 30, 2026, no issuance has released them. The guide to DepEd’s standards for school heads, from NCBS-SH to PPSSH explains the standards such tools would rate.

EDCOM II on the OPCRF

The EDCOM II Final Report, Turning Point, published in January 2026, returns to the OPCRF several times. The page numbers below are the report’s printed pages.

1. The diagnosis (p. 31). “Performance management systems generate compliance, not improvement.” It adds: “The absence of standardized tools for school heads further fragments accountability and support systems.”
2. The headline recommendation (p. 300; summarized on p. 32 as “Revise the OPCRF to prioritize instructional leadership functions”). Revise “the Office Performance Commitment and Review (OPCRF) of principals to prioritize instructional leadership functions—such as classroom observation, teacher coaching, and curriculum implementation—over administrative and compliance tasks that currently dominate their workload.”
3. The mass-promotion problem (p. 451). DepEd should “review and revise its Results-Based Performance Management System (RPMS), and Office Performance Commitment and Review Form (OPCRF), to ensure that targets or incentives within these systems are not linked, directly or indirectly, to student promotion or dropout rates.”

These are recommendations to DepEd, not DepEd rules. The EDCOM II Final Report guide summarizes the report. The guide to instructional leadership for DepEd school heads describes the work an instructional-leadership OPCRF would count. The guide to DepEd’s grading system under DO 015, s. 2026 covers the grading side of mass promotion. Teacher Workload and Accountability covers these recommendations alongside EDCOM II’s findings on teacher workload.

What the school head does now: a checklist

The steps follow the school-based timeline of the 2024 interim guidelines. Your SDO’s issuance takes precedence where it sets other dates.

1. Get the current rules. Ask the SDO for its issuance on the school heads’ OPCRF for the school year, with its template and KRAs.
2. Start from the plan (Phase I). Gather the SIP’s priorities, this year’s AIP, the latest SBM self-assessment results, and learner data such as reading assessments, attendance and dropout.
3. Write the objectives and evidence (see “Key result areas and objectives”). Use learner outcomes as targets where the SIP allows, and avoid targets that reward a promotion rate over honest grading.
4. Agree and sign with the ASDS, then monitor every quarter (Phase II; see “The four phases at the school level”).
5. At mid-year, ask for calibration if a calamity or an outside change has made a target impossible (Phase III).
6. At year-end, rate against the evidence and complete Parts III and IV (Phases III and IV), then feed both plans into next year’s SIP and AIP.
7. Submit on time and keep copies. Late or missing forms can disqualify you from promotion, training and the PBB, and your ratings are evidence for reclassification to School Principal.
8. Watch for the PMES-PPSSH issuance. It may change the form, the weights and the evidence.

OPCRF and the PPSSH: strands and Career Stage 1 indicators

At Career Stage 1, the PPSSH asks aspiring school heads for knowledge and understanding. The table gives the Career Stage 1 indicators that OPCRF work draws on, in the words of DO 024, s. 2020.

The PPSSH’s glossary defines the performance management system in the CSC’s words: “a mechanism that ensures that the employee achieves the objectives set by the organization, and the organization, on the other hand, achieves the objectives that it has set itself in its strategic plan”. The PPSSH guide lists every indicator at all four career stages. The blog guide to PPSSH Domain 4, Developing Self and Others reads strand 4.4 with DepEd data.

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, using the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy. On the OPCRF, expect conceptual items on which rules apply now, and situational items on writing objectives and handling the review cycle. The three items below are original practice items, not actual or recalled NASH items. Each option is scored 3-2-1-0, as in the NASH practice questions with answers. Timed sets are on the NASH Reviewer assessment page.

Question 1

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

A fellow teacher-in-charge tells you that Executive Order No. 61, s. 2024 suspended the OPCRF along with all performance management in government. Which statement best describes what EO 61 did to DepEd’s performance management system?

• A. EO 61 suspended the Performance-Based Bonus under EO 80, so the OPCRF no longer affects any bonus, although DepEd may still use it for promotion.
• B. EO 61 suspended all performance ratings in government, DepEd’s RPMS and the OPCRF included, until the President issues a new system.
• C. EO 61 suspended the government-wide RBPMS and the incentive system pending review, but the CSC advised that agency SPMS continue, and DepEd’s RPMS with its OPCRF is DepEd’s SPMS.
• D. EO 61 suspended AO 25 and EO 80, and DepEd separately paused school-level RPMS in July 2024; since DM 017, s. 2025 lifted that pause, school heads now follow the PMES for teachers.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). EO 61 did suspend EO 80, but the FY 2024 PBB was later granted under the EO 61 TWG’s guidelines, which require at least a Very Satisfactory rating. One fact leads to a wrong conclusion.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). EO 61 names AO 25 and EO 80, not every rating system. The CSC advised that the suspension “is deemed not to affect” agency SPMS.
• C (3 points, Relational). It separates what EO 61 suspended (the government-wide RBPMS and the PBI System) from DepEd’s RPMS, which the CSC treats as an agency SPMS outside the suspension.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). The first two facts are right, but DM 017, s. 2025 lifted the pause for teachers only, and the PMES of DM 089, s. 2025 covers teachers, not school heads.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.4.1 asks for knowledge of how the performance management system is implemented. DM-OSEC-2024-01 quotes the CSC’s letter of June 27, 2024: the SPMS focuses on individual performance, while the RBPMS “is focused on performance management of government agencies”. DO 2, s. 2015 defines the RPMS as “the DepEd-contextualized SPMS”. The pause that did reach school heads was DepEd’s own July 2024 memorandum, a separate question from EO 61. Whether that pause still binds school heads is open; divisions resumed the OPCRF for SY 2025-2026.

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

Sources: Executive Order No. 61, s. 2024, Section 1; DM-OSEC-2024-01, paragraphs 1 and 6; DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015; DepEd Memorandum No. 017, s. 2025, paragraphs 3 and 4; EO 61 TWG Memorandum Circular No. 2026-1, item 7.3.

Question 2

Indicator 1.7.1, Monitoring and evaluation processes and tools. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

You are a newly designated teacher-in-charge of a public elementary school. The SIP’s first priority is reading, and the end-of-year assessment shows many Grade 3 learners reading below grade level. The previous school head’s OPCRF draft has three Part I-A objectives: “Submitted 12 monthly reports on time”, “Conducted four LAC sessions” and “Achieved a 100% promotion rate”. What is the most appropriate way to prepare your OPCRF?

• A. Rebuild the Part I-A objectives under the division’s KRAs from the SIP and AIP reading priority, with measurable learner targets, quality, efficiency and timeliness measures, and means of verification.
• B. Keep the three draft objectives and add a fourth objective on reading, so that the form covers both the school’s compliance work and its learning priority.
• C. Replace all the objectives with a single reading objective carrying the whole 60% of Part I-A, since reading is the school’s first priority in the SIP.
• D. Keep the draft as written, since on-time reports and a full promotion rate are easy to verify and are the safest way to protect the rating.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (3 points, Relational). It ties the KRAs, the SIP and AIP priority, the measures and the evidence into one monitoring design aimed at learner achievement.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). It adds the right priority, but it keeps compliance outputs and a promotion-rate target beside it without asking what each measures.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). It sees the priority but ignores the KRA structure and the guidelines’ advice of at least three objectives per KRA.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). It chooses objectives for ease of rating, not for learning. A promotion-rate target is the kind of incentive EDCOM II links to mass promotion.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.7.1 asks for knowledge of monitoring and evaluation tools “to promote learner achievement”. The 2024 interim guidelines align the timeline of school objectives with the school’s annual plan (AIP) and require quality to be measured for every objective. DO 44, s. 2015 allows SIP work to be written into the school head’s OPCRF. The option that adds reading but keeps the old objectives covers the priority without rethinking what the form measures.

Indicator 1.7.1: Display knowledge and understanding of monitoring and evaluation processes and tools to promote learner achievement.

Sources: DM-OUHROD-2024-0586, Annex B, paragraphs 5, 7, 8 and 11; DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, paragraph 6; EDCOM II Final Report, p. 451.

Question 3

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

In the third month of the school year, a typhoon damages your school, and classes are held in temporary learning spaces for six weeks. One OPCRF objective, a target number of learners completing a reading program, can no longer be reached on the agreed timeline. The mid-year review is next month. What should you do?

• A. Keep the original target and explain the typhoon in the remarks at the year-end assessment, since the rating should show what was first committed.
• B. Edit the target and timeline in your copy of the OPCRF yourself, and submit the revised form at year-end, since the closure was beyond your control.
• C. Drop the objective at the year-end review and spread its weight over the other objectives, since the typhoon made it impossible to rate fairly.
• D. At the mid-year review, propose a one-time calibration of the affected target and timeline on the calibration form, with the evidence of the closure, for agreement and approval.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (2 points, Multistructural). It is honest and keeps the record, but it ignores the calibration that the guidelines provide for exactly this case, so the rating will measure the typhoon.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Targets are agreed between rater and ratee and approved. A change the ratee makes alone has no standing.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). It sees that the circumstance was beyond the school head’s control, but it changes the weights at the wrong time and without approval.
• D (3 points, Relational). It uses the mid-year review, the exceptional case of a calamity, the calibration form and the approval step, and supports the request with evidence.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.4.1 asks for knowledge of how the performance management system works in practice. The 2024 interim guidelines allow “a one-time calibration” at the mid-year review in exceptional cases, including “natural and/or man-made calamities”. The rater and ratee agree on it in the Performance Calibration Form, the approving authority approves it, and it takes effect only upon the approval of the Performance Management Team. The option that waits for year-end is not dishonest, but it misses the step the system provides.

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

Sources: DM-OUHROD-2024-0586, Annex B, paragraphs 22 to 25; DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015.

Frequently asked questions

Is there an OPCRF for school heads in 2026?

Yes. The national form is the revised OPCRF of DM-OUHROD-2024-0586 (March 2024), issued under DO 2, s. 2015. Division memoranda from Muntinlupa, Bulacan and Baguio show school heads accomplishing it for SY 2025-2026. Follow your SDO’s issuance for the template, KRAs and dates.

Is the RPMS still suspended for school heads?

As of October 30, 2026, no national memorandum expressly lifts the July 2024 suspension (DM-OSEC-2024-01) for school heads. DM 017, s. 2025 lifted it for teachers only. Division memoranda show the OPCRF in use again for SY 2025-2026 under DO 2, s. 2015 and the 2024 interim guidelines. Ask your SDO what applies to the current school year.

What is the difference between OPCRF and IPCRF?

The OPCRF records an office’s commitments and performance and is accomplished by the head of office; in a school, the school head. DO 2, s. 2015 states that “The OPCRF shall be equivalent to the IPCRF of the head of office”. The IPCRF is each employee’s individual form. Teachers now use the PMES IPCRF of DM 089, s. 2025.

Who rates the OPCRF of a school head or teacher-in-charge?

The Assistant Schools Division Superintendent rates, and the Schools Division Superintendent approves. The 2024 interim guidelines apply the same matrix to a school head, principal, officer-in-charge or teacher-in-charge. Where there is no applicable rater, the next higher official takes the role.

Did EO 61, s. 2024 suspend the OPCRF?

No. EO 61 suspended AO 25, s. 2011, the government-wide RBPMS, and EO 80, s. 2012, the incentive system that includes the PBB, pending review. The CSC advised that the suspension does not affect each agency’s CSC-approved Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS), and DepEd’s RPMS is its SPMS. DepEd’s own memorandum of July 2024 suspended school-level RPMS for SY 2024-2025.

Do I need a Very Satisfactory OPCRF rating for the PBB?

For the FY 2024 PBB, the guidelines of the EO 61 TWG (Memorandum Circular No. 2026-1) require “a performance rating of at least Very Satisfactory” under the agency’s CSC-approved SPMS, and at least nine months of service for the full grant. The agency must also qualify. Ask your SDO which rating period it uses for school-based personnel.

More on school leadership

This post is part of a series on what a school head does under the DepEd rules in force today. Related posts:

• DepEd PMES for Teachers: DM 089, s. 2025 for School Heads
• Instructional Leadership for DepEd School Heads
• From NCBS-SH to PPSSH: DepEd Standards for School Heads
• Principal, Head Teacher or Teacher-in-Charge in DepEd
• Leadership Styles of School Heads: What the Evidence Says
• RA 9155 Duties of DepEd School Heads: 12 Areas Explained
• DepEd School Improvement Plan (SIP): Steps, AIP and SRC
• DepEd Revised SBM: DO 007, s. 2024 and the Self-Assessment
• DepEd Instructional Supervision: Observing and Coaching
• Human Resource Management for DepEd School Heads
• PPSSH Domain 4: Developing Self and Others With DepEd Data
• EDCOM II Final Report: Guide for Aspiring School Heads
• On the app: The roles of a school head, the PPSSH guide, and the SIP policy review

Sources

• 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, paragraphs 10, 11, 15, 18, 20, 21, 27 and 66, and Annex A.
• Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2024-0586, Interim Guidelines for the Office Performance Planning and Assessment for FY 2024 Onwards, March 27, 2024, with Annex A (revised OPCRF) and Annex B (interim guidelines); transmitted by DepEd Region VIII Regional Memorandum No. 391, s. 2024 (April 3, 2024).
• Memorandum DM-OSEC-2024-01, Guidance on the Implementation of DepEd Results-Based Performance Management System (RPMS) Relative to Executive Order No. 61 (s. 2024), July 22, 2024; attached to SDO Muntinlupa Memorandum UN-2024-256 (August 2, 2024) and to DepEd Region VIII Regional Memorandum No. 824, s. 2024 (pages 2 to 4). DepEd’s announcement of July 23, 2024 reports it.
• 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.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 017, s. 2025, Interim Guidelines for the DepEd PMES for Teachers in the School Year 2024-2025, paragraphs 2 to 4.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025, Guidelines on the Multi-Year PMES for Teachers from SY 2025-2026 to 2027-2028, item 89 and Table 18.
• Memorandum DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001, Guidance in the Implementation of the PMES for Teachers for SY 2025-2026.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 037, s. 2024, Creation of Task Force Results-Based Performance Management System and Teachers’ Workload.
• DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, Guidelines on the Enhanced School Improvement Planning (SIP) Process and the School Report Card (SRC), paragraph 6.
• DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024, Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Revised School-Based Management (SBM) System.
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2025, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Expanded Career Progression System for Teachers and School Heads, Enclosure No. 1, item 36(d)(vi); Enclosure No. 3, items 6(j) and 34.
• DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Three-Term School Calendar in Basic Education.
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025, Administration of the National Assessment for School Heads for Fiscal Year 2025.
• Executive Order No. 80, s. 2012, Directing the Adoption of a Performance-Based Incentive System for Government Employees, Official Gazette.
• Executive Order No. 61, s. 2024, Suspending the Implementation of Administrative Order No. 25 (s. 2011) and Executive Order No. 80 (s. 2012), As Amended, Official Gazette.
• EO No. 61 Technical Working Group, Resolution No. 2026-1 and Memorandum Circular No. 2026-1, Grant of the Performance-Based Bonus for FY 2024, July 2 and 3, 2026, Department of Budget and Management.
• Republic Act No. 12288, Career Progression System for Public School Teachers and School Leaders Act, Section 9, Official Gazette.
• SDO Muntinlupa City, Memorandum UN-2025-275, Office Performance Commitment Rating Form (OPCRF) Development Workshop for School Heads: 1st RPMS Cycle Implementation, SY 2025-2026, June 2025.
• SDO Bulacan, Division Memorandum No. 604, s. 2025, Office Performance Commitment and Review Form (OPCRF) of Elementary and Secondary School Heads, December 9, 2025.
• 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.
• Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II), Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), Final Report, January 2026, printed pages 31, 32, 300, 357 and 451.
• DepEd, news release of October 5, 2026 on National Teachers’ Day and the FY 2024 PBB.

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015; Memoranda DM-OUHROD-2024-0586, DM-OSEC-2024-01 and DM-OUHROD-2025-3315; DepEd Memoranda No. 017 and No. 089, s. 2025; DepEd Orders No. 44, s. 2015, No. 007, s. 2024, No. 024, s. 2025, No. 009, s. 2026 and No. 024, s. 2020; Executive Orders No. 80, s. 2012 and No. 61, s. 2024; EO 61 TWG Memorandum Circular No. 2026-1; Republic Act No. 12288; division memoranda of SDO Muntinlupa, Bulacan and Baguio; the EDCOM II Final Report.