SCORING MATRIX AND

SAMPLE COMPUTATIONS

JULIA O. JORNALES
Facilitator
 If we want
something done,
measure it. If we
can’t measure it,
we can’t
DETERMINE PERFORMANCE
IMPROVEMENT (60%)
THEMAT PERFORMANCE INDICATOR RATING AND COMPUTA RESUL
IC AREA EQUIVALENT TION TS
POINTS
Access Enrolmen Baseline % of 1-Marginal at 3 x 0.45 1.35
(45%) t Rate Increase least 1%
(300) increase
SY 2015- 350 16.67% 2-Average-at
2016 least 7%
increase
SY 2016- 300 -16.67% 3-High-at least
2017 10% increase
SY 2017- 400 33.33%
2018

Average % 11.11%
of increase
THEMATI PERFORMANCE INDICATOR RATING COMPUT RESULTS
C AREA AND ATION
EQUIVAL
ENT
POINTS
Efficiency Drop-Out Baseline % of Baseline-
(25%) Rate Increase 7.06

1-Marginal
at least
25%
decrease
SY 2015- 0.65% 2-Average-
2016
at least
50%
decrease
SY 2016- 2.81% 3-High-at
2017 least 0%
drop-out
SY 2017- 0.39%
2018
Average 1.28%

Average % of 81.87%
Decrease
 7.06 Baseline
- - 1.28 Average Drop-Out
- ________
- 5.78 Difference

- To get the Average Percent of Decrease

5.78
____ x 100 = 81.87%
7.06
THEMATI PERFORMANCE INDICATOR RATING COMPUT RESULTS
C AREA AND ATION
EQUIVAL
ENT
POINTS
Efficiency Completion Baseline/ % of Baseline-
(25%) Rate Standard Increase 75%

1-Marginal
at least 5%
increase
SY 2015- 75 80 2-Average-
2016
at least 7%
increase
SY 2016- 75 85 3-High-at
2017 least 10%
increase
SY 2017- 75 80
2018
Average 81.67%

Average % 8.89%
of Increase
 81.67 Average Completion Rate
- - 75.00 Baseline
- ________
- 6.67 Difference

- To get the Average Percent of Increase

6.67
____ x 100 = 8.89%
75.00
THEMA PERFORMANCE INDICATOR RATING AND COMPUT RESULTS
TIC EQUIVALENT ATION
AREA POINTS
Efficiency Cohort Baseline/ % of Baseline- 75%
(25%) Survival Standard Increase
Rate 1-Marginal at
least 5% increase
SY 2015- 75% 82 2-Average-at
2016 least 7% increase
SY 2016- 75% 84 3-High-at least
2017 10% increase
SY 2017- 75% 86
2018
Average 84

Average % 12%
of Increase
Sub-total 2+2+3 2.33 x 0.58
(DR+CR+CS =2.33
R) 3 0.25
 84.00 Average Cohort Survival Rate
- - 75.00 Baseline
- ________
- 9.00 Difference

- To get the Average Percent of Increase

9.00
____ x 100 = 12%
75.00
THEMATI PERFORMANCE INDICATOR RATING COMPUT RESULTS
C AREA AND ATION
EQUIVAL
ENT
POINTS
Quality Average Baseline/ % of 1-Marginal 2 x 0.30 0.60
(30%) Final standard Increase 65-75%
Rating
SY 2015- 75% 82.95 2-Average
2016
76-85%
SY 2016- 75% 83.69 3-High 85-
2017 100%
SY 2017- 75% 84.60
2018
Average 83.75
Final
Rating
SUB-TOTAL 2.53

Interpretation Best
 Legend:

Numerical Rating Scale Description

0.50-1.40 Good

1.50-2.49 Better

2.50-3.00 Best

 Note: Only schools having a performance of “Better” can apply to the Division for SBM Evaluation
 STEP 2 COMPUTE FOR VALIDATED SBM
ASSESSMENT SCORES (40%)
SBM Principles Weight Cumulative Scores of Results
Validators per Principle
Computation
Leadership and 30% 1.20 x 0.30 0.36
Governance
Curriculum Learning 30% 2.50 x 0.30 0.75
Accountability 25% 3.00 x 0.25 0.75
Resource Management 15% 2.00 x 0.15 0.30
Sub-Total 100% 2.16
Interpretation Better

LEGEND: Numerical Rating Scale Description

0.50-1.49 Good
1.50-2.49 Better
2.50-3.00 Best
 Legend:
Numerical Rating Scale Description
0.50-1.49 Good
1.50-2.49 Better
2.50-3.00 Best
STEP 3: COMPUTE FOR THE FINAL RATING
Areas Weight Computation Results
A. Performance
Improvement 60% 2.53 1.52
B. SBM
Assessment 40% 2.16 0.86
Score DOD
TOTAL
100% 2.38
SBM LEVEL OF PRACTICE MATURING
Legend:
NUMERICAL RATING DESCRIPTION
0.50-1.49 Developing
1.50-2.49 Maturing
2.50-3.0 Advanced
 STEP 2 COMPUTE FOR VALIDATED SBM
ASSESSMENT SCORES (40%)
SBM Principles Weight Cumulative Scores of Results
Validators per Principle
Computation
Leadership and 30% 1.20 x 0.30 0.36
Governance
Curriculum Learning 30% 2.50 x 0.30 0.75
Accountability 25% 3.00 x 0.25 0.75
Resource Management 15% 2.00 x 0.15 0.30
Sub-Total 100% 2.16
Interpretation BETTER
LEGEND:
Numerical Rating Scale Description
0.50-1.49 Good
1.50-2.49 Better
2.50-3.00 Best
SAMPLE COMPUTATION FOR DOCUMENTARY
ANALYSIS FOR LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
Level 1 / or x Rating Level 2 / or x Rating Level 3 / or x Rating
Indicat
or 1

1 / 1 5 / 0 8 x 0
2 / 6 X
3 / 7 /
4 /
Level 1 / or x Rating Level 2 / or x Rating Level 3 / or x Rating
Indicat
or 2

1 / 1 4 / 0 7 x 0
2 / 5 X 8 x
3 / 6 /
Level 1 / or x Rating Level 2 / or x Rating Level 3 / or x Rating
Indicat
or 3

1 / 1 4 / 2 6 x 0
2 / 5 / 7 x
3 /
Level 1 / or x Rating Level 2 / or x Rating Level 3 / or x Rating
Indicat
or 4

1 / 1 3 / 0 6 x 0
2 / 4 / 7 x
5 x 8 x
Level 1 / or x Rating Level 2 / or x Rating Level 3 / or x Rating
Indicat
or 5

1 / 1 5 / 0 10 - 0

2 / 6 /
3 / 7 x
4 / 8 /
9 x
 SUMMARY LEADERSHIP AND
GOVERNANCE (30%)

INDICATOR 1 1
INDICATOR 2 1
INDICATOR 3 2
INDICATOR 4 1
INDICATOR 5 1
TOTAL POINTS 6
AVERAGE 1.2
 Without a standard,
there is no logical
basis for decision
making
or taking action.
 Joseph M. Huban
 Don’t lower our
expectations to meet our
performance. Raise our
level of performance to
meet our expectations.
 Ralph Marston
GOOD LUCK!