Qualitative Contribution Evaluation (Qce) : of The National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 461

QUALITATIVE CONTRIBUTION EVALUATION (QCE)
OF THE NATIONAL BUDGET CIRCULAR (NBC) No. 461

Introduction
The Qualitative Contribution Evaluation (QCE) of the National Budget Circular No. 461 practices of
the StateUniversities and Colleges (SUC’s) is an integral and effective component of total quality assurance
in public tertiary education. It is designed to make an effective motivator for the development of a culture of
excellence in: Instruction, Research, Extension, and Production. That QCE would make as an effective
reliable measure for faculty ranking among the public tertiary institution.
Qualitative Contribution Evaluation is a validating factor of CCE with two levels: First is QCE for
instructors, assistant Professors and associate Professors is focused on instructions/teaching effectiveness.
This however shall not prevent a faculty from having other functions. Second is QCE for full-fledged
Professor is focused to research, extension, and production on top of or in addition to instructional
functions.
Full-fledged Professors be rated on Instruction (50%) and mandatory on Research (50%) without
prejudice to having other functions.
This manual of operation will be helpful in the conduct of QCE to the school system in reference to
the objectives of it, as it is done in order to attain and achieve its very objectives towards quality and
excellence in education through the performance and competencies of the faculty in the public tertiary
institution.
Definition of Terms
The definitions of the technical terms presented are quoted from the implementing guidelines of
Quality Contribution Evaluation (Annex 1 and 2) of the NBC 461, signed by PASUC President Dr. Eldigario
D. Gonzales and CHED Chairman Dr. Carlito S. Puno (2006).
Areas of Evaluation. It refers to the four areas of concern of QCE such as Instruction, Research,
Extension, and Production; where the academic rank holder is evaluated.
 Instruction. It refers to the teaching effectiveness and its delivery that eventually results in
academic excellence. Teaching effectiveness of faculty members is evaluated using the
assessment areas which are the commitment, knowledge of subject matter, teaching for
independent learning and management of learning.
 Research. It refers to the scientific investigation duly approved by the university/college

authority and it is evaluated using the four (4) assessment areas such as; clientele satisfaction,
leadership, partnership development, community responsibility.
 Extension. It refers to the activities/projects/programs conducted by a faculty include

technology verification, packaging, managing/facilitating non-formal/non-degree trainings,
consultancy and speakership in trainings/seminars/symposia/convocations, community
development activities, people empowerment/capability building, radio programs and
development/publication/dissemination of manuals, brochures, pamphlets, leaflets, techno-
guide and newsletters, and the assessment areas are clientele satisfaction, leadership,
partnership development, community responsibility.
1-OF/2-GD/3-TSA/4a&b-JM/6-NC/ncr-MM/7-dp/8-SL/all zonal directors/2012

 Production. Refers to all activities related to the production of goods and services supportive
to the programs of the College/University/Institution, and the assessment areas are clientele
satisfaction, leadership, partnership development, community responsibility.
Clientele Satisfaction. This is a strategic concept for the overall institutional image as the SUC
seeks continuous improvement toward excellence. It is based on the belief that the quality of education will
improve as the clientele (i.e. students, parents, community) assume more responsibility for the value of
education they draw from the institution. This demands constant sensitivity to clientele requirements and
measurements of the factors that drive clientele satisfaction. Equally, this demands awareness of the latest
developments in education and rapid response to the clientele requirements thereby improving both the
quality of education and the relationships with students, parents, and community.
Commitment. This refers to a faculty member’s deep sense of responsibility to render service for
the development of the student’s well-being and for the advancement of his/her discipline.
Common Criteria for Evaluation. The CCE is a set of factors of services and achievements which
establish the relative performance of a faculty in the state university or college for the period of evaluation.
This refers to a faculty member’s deep sense of responsibility to render service for the development of the
student’s well-being and for the advancement of his/her discipline.
Community Responsibility. Education quality objectives should reflect areas of community

citizenship and responsibility. These include ethics in education, support for public safety, environmental
safety, and sharing of quality-related information with business, industry and government agencies within
the community needs and process to develop and maintain public trust.
Knowledge of Subject. This includes the faculty member’s scholarship and expertise in his/her
chosen field or discipline.
Leadership. Professors (including board members and administrators) must create clear and
visible quality values within the educational system. Reinforcement of these values and expectations
requires personal commitment and involvement. Professors in collaboration with administrators and
instructors or board members, must create strategies, system and methods for achieving educational
excellence. These systems and methods guide activities and decisions of the college or university and
encourage participation and creativity by all.
Management of Learning. This refers to the faculty member’s ability to create and manage a
conductive learning environment and at the same time guide, monitor, and evaluate student learning.
National Budget Circular (NBC 461). It sets the latest guidelines in the promotion and
standardization of salary of faculty and administrators at the SUCs and CHED – Supervised institutions
including TESDA (PADA 1998).
Partnership Development. The college or university should seek to build internal and external
partnerships that promote cooperation/collaboration serving mutual in larger community interests. These
should consider longer-term objectives as well as short-term needs, thereby creating a basis for mutual
investments. The building of partnerships should address means of regular communication, approaches to
evaluating progress, means of modifying objectives, and methods to accommodate changing conditions.
Qualitative Contribution. This is the distinctive contribution by a faculty member seeking

promotion to a higher rank or sub-rank and which generally accrues the enhancement and sustenance of
the overall image of the state universities and colleges in their constant endeavor towards excellence.
Qualitative Contribution Evaluation. Is the process of determining the eligibility of a faculty

candidate for the particular rank and sub-rank indicated by result of the application of the common criteria
for evaluation.

Teaching for Independent Learning. This pertains to the faculty member’s ability to organize
teaching-learning processes to enable students to maximize their learning potentials.
The Revised Implementing Guidelines for Annex 1 of QCE of the NBC No. 461 (Instructors,
Assistant Professors and Associate Professors), Signed by PASUC President Dr. Eldigario D. Gonzales
and CHED Chairman Dr. Carlito S. Puno (2006) are as follows:
I. General Guidelines
In addition to the common criteria for evaluation (CCE), promotion to a higher rank and sub-rank of
Instructor, Assistant Professor and Associate Professor shall be subject to Qualitative Contribution
Evaluation (QCE).
Continuous improvement toward excellence shall include well-defined and well-executed approach(es)
aimed to enhancing the value of collegiate/university education to the clientele the SU/C pledges to
serve. The improvements must be in all four (4) functional areas of the SU/C, namely: instruction,
research, extension, and production.
For those seeking promotion to the higher sub-ranks of the Instructor, Assistant Professor and
Associate Professor positions, the QCE shall be in the Teaching Effectiveness.
II. Specific Guidelines
A. The Teaching Effectiveness of instructors, assistant professors and associate professors is

evaluated using the following assessment areas with corresponding weighted points:
1. Commitment 0.25
2. Knowledge of Subject 0.25
3. Teaching for Independent Learning 0.25
4. Management of Learning 0.25
B. A common evaluation instrument is prepared by a joint committee of CHED, PASUC, and TESDA.
The Evaluation is done by the faculty concerned, his peers, his supervisor, and his student
beneficiaries.
C. Each area of assessment has a number of criteria and allotted a total of 25 points. The total raw
point for the assessment area is 100. The raw points garnered in each of the four assessment
areas are multiplied by the corresponding weight.
D. In rating using the criteria, the scale of 1 to 5 is used, with 5 as the highest.
E. The faculty shall be evaluated regularly and the average rating is obtained for the particular CCE
implementation.
F. The following are the minimum points required under the QCE so that a faculty with the
appropriate CCE credits can be promoted.
G. In case a faculty opts to perform multiple functions, 70% is mandated in Instruction

SUB RANK MINIMUM POINTS
II 80
Instructor
III 82
I 84
II 86
Assistant Professor
III 88
IV 90
I 91
II 92
Associate Professor III 93
IV 94
V 95
The Revised Implementing Guidelines for Annex 2 of QCE of the NBC No. 461 (Professors),
Signed by PASUC President Dr. Eldigario D. Gonzales and CHED Chairman Dr. Carlito S. Puno (2006) are
as follows:
I. General Guidelines
A. In addition to the common criteria for evaluation (CCE), promotion to higher rank and sub-rank of
Professor shall be subject to the QCE of Professor.
B. Continuous improvement toward excellence shall include well-defined and well-executed

approach(es) aimed at enhancing the value of college/university education to the clientele the
SU/C pledges to serve. The improvement must be in all four (4) functional areas of the SU/C,
namely: instruction, research, extension, and production.
C. For those seeking promotion to the Professor rank, the QCE shall be in two (2) functional areas
chosen by the candidate prior to any assessment year. (Instruction plus research as mandatory
function).

II. Specific Guidelines
A. In each of the self-selected functional areas, the candidates’ qualitative contribution shall be
assessed based on clientele satisfaction, leadership, partnership development, and community
responsibility. The weight applicable to the different ranks are as follows:
Rank Instruction Research Extension Production
Professor 0.50 0.50
B. A common evaluation instrument is prepared by a joint committee of CHED and PASUC. The
evaluation is done by the ratee’s client, by the direct supervisor, by the stakeholders in the
completed projects, and by his internal and external communities.
C. Each area of assessment has a number of criteria and allotted a total of 25 points. The total raw
point for the assessment area is 100, the raw points garnered in each of the four assessment
areas is multiplied by the corresponding weight.
D. In rating using the criteria, the scale of 1 to 5 is used, with 5 as the highest.
E. The faculty should be evaluated regularly at the end of every academic school year and the
average rating is obtained for the particular CCE implementation.
F. The total weighted points (maximum being 100) shall have the equivalent points corresponding to
the sub-ranks under Full Professor ranks as follows:
QCE Weighted Points

RANK
Minimum Maximum
1 61 65
2 66 70
3 71 75
Full Professor
4 76 80
5 81 85
6 86 90
College Professor 91 95
University Professor 96 100

AREA 1: INSTRUCTION/TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
1.0 DEFINITION
Teaching effectiveness pertains to the faculty member’s ability to organize teaching-learning

processes to enable students to maximize their learning potentials and/or the delivery of instruction that
eventually results in academic excellence.
2.0 SPECIFIC GUIDELINES
2.1 Areas of Evaluation
The teaching effectiveness of faculty members is evaluated using the following

assessment areas with the corresponding weighted points.
AREAS WEIGHTED POINTS
a. Commitment 25
b. Knowledge of Subject Matter 25
c. Teaching for Independent Learning 25
d. Management of Learning 25
Total 100
2.2 Mode of Evaluation
 The evaluation is done every semester or twice a year.
 The QCE point is the average of ratings for six semesters (three years).
2.3 Evaluation Period
A faculty shall be evaluated in instruction covered within the cycle and the QCE point is
obtained during the particular NBC 461 cycle.
3.0 PROCESS OF EVALUATION
3.1.1 Commitment: This refers to a faculty member’s deep sense of responsibility to render
service for the development of the students’ well-being and for advancement of his/her
discipline.
3.1.2 Knowledge of Subject Matter: This includes the faculty member’s scholarship and
expertise in his/her chosen field of discipline.
3.1.3 Teaching for Independent Learning: This pertains to the faculty member’s ability to
organize teaching-learning processes to enable students to maximize their learning potentials.
3.1.4 Management of Learning: This refers to the faculty member’s ability to create and
manage conducive learning environment and at the same time guide, monitor and evaluate
student learning.

3.2 Evaluators
3.2.1 Students
 A faculty member with three or more classes the students’ evaluator will be chosen
through institutional sampling strategies or by cluster random sampling with a minimum
of thirty (30) students to be done by the Department Chairperson.
 For a faculty member with less than or equal to thirty (30) students in all classes are the
evaluators.
3.2.2 Peers
 All the faculty members within the department are evaluators.
 In case of less than five peers are available, faculty members from related disciplines
that are familiar with the academic activities of the faculty member can be chosen by
random sampling (to be done by the Department Chairperson) to complete the
minimum number of five peer evaluators.
3.2.3 Supervisor
 He is the immediate superior or the Department Chairperson of the faculty member.

 The Department Chairperson is to be rated by the Dean.
 The Dean is to rated by the VPAA.
 The VPAA as well as the Dean should be rated by the Department Chairperson and
President.
3.2.4 Self
 The faculty concerned.
3.3 Instrument
 The QCE of the NBC No. 461 for Instruction/Teaching Effectiveness

3.4 Computation
3.4.1 The total QCE point of the faculty is the sum of the weighted point (product of QCE point
per evaluator and the given percentage) of all four categories of evaluators: supervisor
(30%), students (30%), peers (20%), and self (20%).
QCE Point per

Evaluators Percentage Weighted Points
Evaluator
A. Self .20
B. Peers .20
C. Students .30
D. Supervisor .30
Total QCE Point
AREA 2: RESEARCH
1.0 DEFINITION
Research would include scientific investigation duly approved by the university/college

authority.
2.0 SPECIFIC GUIDELINES
Research activities/projects of faculty members under the QCE shall be evaluated using
the four (4) assessment areas below with their corresponding weighted points.
a. Clientele Satisfaction 25
b. Leadership 25
c. Partnership Development 25
d. Community Responsibility 25
Total 100

 A faculty who wishes to be evaluated in the area of research shall submit himself/herself for
evaluation by specified evaluators of the four areas of evaluation.
 Faculty members qualified for evaluation in the area of research must be any of the
following: research program leaders, project leaders, study leaders, co-study leaders,
research collaborators, research assistants, and other who are directly involved in the
research activities. However, statisticians, computer encoders, editors and the like are not
included in this category.
 Research includes only scientific investigation (completed research, papers/posters

presented in the conferences on going researches, approved research proposal, and etc.).
 Feasibility Studies shall be evaluated in the same way as research output, however, only
Feasibility Studies with Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) will be considered.
 Evaluation should be done right after the activity/project and/or every end of the school
year.
 Each faculty shall be evaluated in all research activities conducted within the cycle and the
average rating is obtained for the particular NBC 461 cycle.
3.1 Areas of Evaluation and Evaluators
3.1.1 Clientele Satisfaction
In this area the faculty member should be evaluated as to the extent that their research
activities/projects provide significant contribution, help/facilitate and/or in of assistance to the overall
institutional image as the college/university seek continuous improvement toward excellence,
through constant awareness and sensitivity to clientele requirements and/or needs thereby
improving both the quality of education and relationships with students, parents and the community.
 Evaluators: Any from the research clientele; i.e. students, teachers, parents, community
(LGU/NGO and etc.), industries, and etc. There shall be at least three (3) evaluators.
3.1.2 Leadership
The faculty member should be evaluated as to the extent that their research
activities/projects reflect their quality values and it must be clear and visible within the educational
system. This requires personal commitment and involvement, and creates strategies, system and
methods for achieving educational excellence. These strategies, systems and methods influence
activities and decisions of the college or university and encourage participation and creativity by all.
 Evaluators: Researcher’s immediate supervisor (i.e. program leader for project leaders, project
leader for study leaders, and the Director for the Research Coordinator).
3.1.3 Partnership Development
In this area the faculty member should be evaluated as to the extent that their research
activities/projects provide significant contribution/instrumental, and/or in of assistance to the
processes were the college or university build internal and external partnerships that promote
cooperation/collaboration serving mutual and larger community interest. These also consider
longer-term objective as well as short-term needs, thereby creating a basis for mutual investments.

The building of partnerships address means of regular communication, approaches to evaluating
progress, means of modifying objectives, and methods to accommodate changing conditions.
 Evaluators: Anyone from research stakeholders or immediate beneficiaries of research

projects/activities. There shall be at least three (3) evaluators.
3.1.4 Community Responsibility
This area of evaluation the faculty member should be evaluated as to the extent that their
research activities/projects provide significant contribution/instrumental and/or in of assistance to
the means were the college or university responses to community requirements and/or needs, and
processes to develop and maintain public trust. These include ethical issues on the said
activity(s)/project(s) with reference in education process, support for public safety, environmental
safety, and sharing of quality-related information with business, industry and government agencies
within the community and the country.
 Evaluators: Anyone from the external and internal communities [i.e. student community, local
community (e.g. households, Government and private employees, etc.), industries, NGO/GO,
etc.]. There shall be at least three (3) evaluators.
3.2 Documents Needed
The following documents must be submitted by the candidates who wish to be evaluated under
research area to the local QCE Committee for Research through the representative of their respective
colleges:
3.2.1 For locally approved researches/research proposals, a letter of approval.
3.2.2 For externally funded researches/feasibility studies, a MOA/MOU entered into by the faculty
and the head of the sponsoring/funding institution.
3.2.3 For published researches, published audio-visual materials which are products of research,
terminal research report and published research reports in journals, duly certified by the
Chairperson of the College Research Committee.
3.2.4 Designation/Appointments signed by the College/University President, VP for Research,

Research Director/Coordinator, and/or Dean.
3.2.5 QCE Forms for research duly certified by appropriate offices.
3.2.6 Approved progress reports for ongoing projects.

3.3 Procedure
The following constitute the procedure for evaluation:
Step 1. The faculty shall secure the QCE forms for Research from the College/University QCE
Team/Committee
Step 2. The Unit Research Coordinator administers them to his/her clients whom he/she served
the research program/project/activity.
Step 3. A witness should sign the QCE forms, preferably the head of the organization/LGU or the
Unit Research Coordinator, affirming the authenticity of the answers of the respondents
and the validity of the research program/project/ activity.
Step 4. The duly answered QCE Forms, together with supporting documents should be
submitted to the College/University QCE Team/Committee.
Step 5. The College/University QCE Team/Committee shall evaluate and review the documents
submitted, their authenticity, especially the signatures of evaluators and the witnesses.
Specimen of their signatures should be found in order and authentic.
Step 6. The faculty shall be evaluated in all research activities conducted within the cycle and the
3.4 Instruments
The following are the QCE Instrument for Research corresponding to the four areas of
evaluation:
 The QCE for Research Instrument

AREA 3: EXTENSION
I.0 DEFINITION
Extension activities/project/programs conducted by a faculty include technology verification, packaging,

managing/facilitating non-formal/non-degree trainings, consultancy and speakership in
trainings/seminars/symposia/ convocations, community development activities, people
empowerment/capability building, radio programs and development/publication/dissemination of manuals,
brochures, pamphlets, leaflets, techno-guide and newsletters.
Includes extension activities which are community based, service oriented, (without remunerations)
voluntary, not part of the faculty’s teaching (i.e. subject/course) load, and/or activities in line with faculty
expertise.
2.0. SPECIFIC GUIDELINES
The extension activities/projects of the faculty members under QCE shall be evaluated
using the four (4) assessments areas below with their corresponding weighted points.
b. Leadership 25
Total 100
 A faculty who wishes to be evaluated in the area of extension shall submit himself/herself
for evaluation by specified evaluators of the four areas of evaluation.
 Faculty members qualified for evaluation in the area of extension are those directly involved
and responsible in any extension activities/project/programs, include technology
verification, packaging, managing/facilitating non-formal/non-degree trainings, consultancy
and speakership in trainings/seminars/symposia/ convocations, community development
activities, people empowerment/capability building, radio programs and
development/publication/dissemination of manuals, brochures, pamphlets, leaflets, techno-
guide and newsletters. Includes extension activities which are community based, service
oriented, (without remunerations) voluntary, not part of the faculty’s teaching (i.e.
subject/course) load, and/or activities in line with faculty expertise.
year.

 Each faculty shall be evaluated in all extension activities conducted within the cycle and the
3.0 PROCESSOF EVALUATION
In this area the faculty member should be evaluated as to the quality of their extension
activities/projects/programs and to what extent it provide significant contribution, help/facilitate
and/or in of assistance to the overall institutional image as the college/university seek continuous
improvement toward excellence, through constant awareness and sensitivity to clientele
requirements and/or needs thereby improving both the quality of education and relationships with
students, parents and the community.
 Evaluators: Clientele of the extension programs/projects/activities such as the

president/chairperson of the people’s organizations, barangay chairperson, students, parents
and other beneficiaries.
3.1.2 Leadership
The faculty member should be evaluated as to the extent that their extension
activities/projects/programs reflect their quality values and it must be clear and visible within the
educational system. This requires personal commitment and involvement, and creates strategies,
system and methods for achieving educational excellence. These strategies, systems and methods
influence activities and decisions of the college or university and encourage participation and
creativity by all.
 Evaluators: Immediate supervisor of the faculty which may include team/project leaders,
college extension coordinators, and etc.
In this area the faculty member should be evaluated as to the extent that their extension
activities/projects/programs provide significant contribution/instrumental, and/or in of assistance to
the processes were the college or university build internal and external partnerships that promote
 Evaluators: Stakeholders of the extension programs/projects/activities such as barangay

chairperson, municipal mayor, presidents of POs/GOs/NGOs, etc.

extension activities/projects/programs provide significant contribution/instrumental and/or in of
assistance to the means were the college or university responses to community requirements
and/or needs, and processes to develop and maintain public trust. These include ethical issues on
the said activity(s)/project(s) with reference in education process, support for public safety,
environmental safety, and sharing of quality-related information with business, industry and
government agencies within the community and the country.
 Evaluators: Parties from the external and internal Community, namely; heads of
agencies/organizations (PO, NGO, LGU,GO,etc.)
 3.2 Documents Needed
The following documents must be submitted by a faculty who wishes to be evaluated under
extension area to the College/University QCE Team/Committee through the representative of their
respective college:
3.2.1 For those extension programs/projects covered by the college/university, an extension

plan/program certified by the SUCs Vice President or Director of Extension should be
submitted.
3.2.2 For those extension programs entered into by other agencies outside the university/college,
a MOA or MOU should be submitted.
3.2.3 Reports (i.e. terminal/ongoing) of the extension activities conducted should also be
submitted.
3.2.4 Designation/appointments duly signed by the agency heads; and invitation letter from
clientele, certification/certificate of appearance, narrative report, etc.
3.2.5 Duly accomplished QCE Extension Forms.
3.2.6 Other documents to support claims for extension services rendered.
3.3 Procedure
Step 1. The faculty shall secure the QCE forms for Extension from the Chairman of
the College/University QCE Team/Committee
Step 2. The faculty shall be responsible for the distribution of the forms to the
clients.
Step 3. A witness should sign the QCE forms, preferably the head of the
organization/agencies affirming the authenticity of the answers of the
respondents and the validity of the extension program project/activities.
Step 4. The duly accomplished QCE Forms, together with the authenticated
supporting documents, should be submitted to the College/University QCE
Team/Committee.
Step 5. The College/University QCE Team/Committee shall evaluate and review

the documents submitted, specially the signatures of the clients and the
witnesses. Specimens of their signatures should be found in order and
authentic.
Step 6. Each faculty shall be evaluated in all extension activities conducted within
the cycle and the average rating is obtained for the particular NBC 461
cycle.
3.4 Instruments
The following are the QCE Instrument for Extension corresponding to the four areas of
evaluation
 The QCE for Extension Instrument
AREA 4: PRODUCTION
I.0 DEFINITION
Production refers to all activities related to the production of goods and services supportive to the
programs of the College/University/Institution through the personal initiative of the faculty. Examples of the
production activities where the faculty can be evaluated include: Scientific/professional book writing, food
processing, tissue culture and other agribusiness-related projects; socio-cultural/entertainment project:
statistical data processing pool, thesis editing pool, and other production-related activities duly sanctioned
and approved by the college/university/institution.
For University-owned/sponsored IGPs, production activities could be considered if there could be a

marked increase of at least three percent (3%) in Return of Investment (ROI) over the historical financial
data for the last three (3) years.

2.0. SPECIFIC GUIDELINES
The production activities/projects of faculty members under the QCE shall be evaluated using
the four (4) assessment areas below with their corresponding weighted points.
b. Leadership 25
Total 100
 A faculty who wishes to be evaluated in the area of production shall submit himself/herself
for evaluation by specified evaluators to the four areas of evaluation.
 Faculty members qualified for evaluation in the area of production are those directly
involved and responsible in any activities related to the production of goods and services
supportive to the programs of the College/University/Institution through the personal
initiative of the faculty (consider the definition of production).
year.
 Each faculty shall be evaluated in all production activities conducted within the cycle and
the average rating is obtained for the particular NBC 461 cycle.
In this area the faculty member should be evaluated as to the quality of their production
activities/projects and to what extent it provide significant contribution, help/facilitate and/or in of
assistance to the overall institutional image as the college/university seek continuous improvement
toward excellence, through constant awareness and sensitivity to clientele requirements and/or
needs thereby improving both the quality of education and relationships with students, parents and
the community.
 Evaluators: Clientele (i.e. students, faculty, members, school administrators, agency head,
community residents)

3.1.2 Leadership
The faculty member should be evaluated as to the extent that their production
activities/projects reflect their quality values and it must be clear and visible within the educational
system. This requires personal commitment and involvement, and creates strategies, system and
methods for achieving educational excellence. These strategies, systems and methods influence
activities and decisions of the college or university and encourage participation and creativity by all.
 Evaluators: Clientele (i.e. school administrators, agency head, immediate supervisor)
In this area the faculty member should be evaluated as to the extent that their production
activities/projects provide significant contribution/instrumental, and/or in of assistance to the
processes were the college or university build internal and external partnerships that promote
 Evaluators: Clientele (i.e. school administrator, agency head, business entities)
production activities/projects provide significant contribution/instrumental and/or in of assistance to
the means were the college or university responses to community requirements and/or needs, and
processes to develop and maintain public trust. These include ethical issues on the said
activity(s)/project(s) with reference in education process, support for public safety, environmental
safety, and sharing of quality-related information with business, industry and government agencies
within the community and the country.
 Evaluators: Clientele (i.e. students, faculty Members, school administrator, agency head,
business entities, community residents)
3.2 Documents Needed
The Following documents must be submitted by the candidates who wish to be evaluated under the
production area to the college/university QCE Team/Committee through the representative of their
respective colleges:
Whenever necessary/applicable, any of the following shall be submitted:
3.2.1 Memorandum of Agreement/Understanding or any written contract entered into by the

faculty and the head of the college/university.
3.2.2 Letter of request duly approved by the authorities concerned/target beneficiaries

3.2.3 Production plan/feasibility study approved by the school administrator.
3.2.4 Business permits legally operate the production activity which is secured from the office of
the municipal mayor. In case of book writing, ISBN is required.
3.2.5 Time table of monitoring/evaluation of production activities
3.2.6 Minutes of consultative meeting with the target clientele
3.2.7 Result of the assessment conducted
3.2.8 Duly accomplished QCE forms under production.
3.2.9 Audited financial report/income statement during the cycle.
3.2.10 Other documents deemed necessary for production evaluation under QCE.
3.3 Procedure
Step 1. The faculty shall secure QCE forms for production from the College/University
QCE Team/Committee
Step 2. He/she then administers it to his/her immediate beneficiaries/clients.
Step 3. A witness should sign the QCE form, preferably the head of the organization
or any person in authority, affirming the authenticity of the information
provided and the validity of the production activity
Step 4. The duly accomplished QCE forms, together with other supporting
documents, shall be submitted to the College/University QCE
Team/Committee.
Step 5. The College/University QCE Team/Committee shall evaluate and review the
documents submitted their authenticity, especially the signatures of the
clients and the witness. Specimen of their signatures should be found in order
and authentic.
Step 6. Each faculty shall be evaluated in all production activities conducted within
the cycle and the average rating is obtained for the particular NBC 461 cycle.
3.4 Instruments
The following are the QCE Instrument for Production corresponding to the four areas of
evaluation
 The QCE for Production Instrument

 The QCE for Production Instrument 4: Community Responsibility (See Appendix M)

Qualitative Contribution Evaluation (Qce) : of The National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 461

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qualitative Contribution Evaluation (Qce) : of The National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 461

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qualitative Contribution Evaluation (Qce) : of The National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 461

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QUALITATIVE CONTRIBUTION EVALUATION (QCE)

OF THE NATIONAL BUDGET CIRCULAR (NBC) No. 461

 Research. It refers to the scientific investigation duly approved by the university/college

 Extension. It refers to the activities/projects/programs conducted by a faculty include

1-OF/2-GD/3-TSA/4a&b-JM/6-NC/ncr-MM/7-dp/8-SL/all zonal directors/2012

Community Responsibility. Education quality objectives should reflect areas of community

Qualitative Contribution. This is the distinctive contribution by a faculty member seeking

Qualitative Contribution Evaluation. Is the process of determining the eligibility of a faculty

1-OF/2-GD/3-TSA/4a&b-JM/6-NC/ncr-MM/7-dp/8-SL/all zonal directors/2012

II. Specific Guidelines

A. The Teaching Effectiveness of instructors, assistant professors and associate professors is

2. Knowledge of Subject 0.25

3. Teaching for Independent Learning 0.25

4. Management of Learning 0.25

G. In case a faculty opts to perform multiple functions, 70% is mandated in Instruction

1-OF/2-GD/3-TSA/4a&b-JM/6-NC/ncr-MM/7-dp/8-SL/all zonal directors/2012

Associate Professor III 93

B. Continuous improvement toward excellence shall include well-defined and well-executed

1-OF/2-GD/3-TSA/4a&b-JM/6-NC/ncr-MM/7-dp/8-SL/all zonal directors/2012

Rank Instruction Research Extension Production

Professor 0.50 0.50

QCE Weighted Points

University Professor 96 100

1-OF/2-GD/3-TSA/4a&b-JM/6-NC/ncr-MM/7-dp/8-SL/all zonal directors/2012

Teaching effectiveness pertains to the faculty member’s ability to organize teaching-learning

2.0 SPECIFIC GUIDELINES

2.1 Areas of Evaluation

The teaching effectiveness of faculty members is evaluated using the following

AREAS WEIGHTED POINTS

b. Knowledge of Subject Matter 25

c. Teaching for Independent Learning 25

2.2 Mode of Evaluation

 The evaluation is done every semester or twice a year.

2.3 Evaluation Period

3.0 PROCESS OF EVALUATION

3.1 Areas of Evaluation

1-OF/2-GD/3-TSA/4a&b-JM/6-NC/ncr-MM/7-dp/8-SL/all zonal directors/2012

 All the faculty members within the department are evaluators.

 He is the immediate superior or the Department Chairperson of the faculty member.

 The faculty concerned.

 The QCE of the NBC No. 461 for Instruction/Teaching Effectiveness

1-OF/2-GD/3-TSA/4a&b-JM/6-NC/ncr-MM/7-dp/8-SL/all zonal directors/2012

QCE Point per

Total QCE Point

Research would include scientific investigation duly approved by the university/college

2.0 SPECIFIC GUIDELINES

2.1 Areas of Evaluation

AREAS WEIGHTED POINTS

1-OF/2-GD/3-TSA/4a&b-JM/6-NC/ncr-MM/7-dp/8-SL/all zonal directors/2012

 Research includes only scientific investigation (completed research, papers/posters

2.3 Evaluation Period

3.0 PROCESS OF EVALUATION

3.1 Areas of Evaluation and Evaluators

3.1.1 Clientele Satisfaction

3.1.3 Partnership Development

1-OF/2-GD/3-TSA/4a&b-JM/6-NC/ncr-MM/7-dp/8-SL/all zonal directors/2012

 Evaluators: Anyone from research stakeholders or immediate beneficiaries of research

3.1.4 Community Responsibility

3.2 Documents Needed