Speech-Language Pathologist: an individual who holds a valid Nevada license issued by the Superintendent of Public Instruction with an endorsement for Speech and Language Impairments. The rubric consists of one category (Educational Practice) and two domains (Professional Practice and Professional Responsibilities). The domains are weighted equally, as approved by the TLC and the State Board of Education, for the 2018-2019 school year at 50% each, totaling 100% for both domains.
Educational Audiologist: an individual who holds a valid Nevada license issued by the Superintendent of Public Instruction with an endorsement to provide audiological services. The rubric consists of one category (Educational Practice) and one domain (Professional Practice). The domain is weighted, as approved by the TLC and the State Board of Education, for the 2018-2019 school year at 100%. This group is completing a field test during the 2018-2019 school year.
Teacher-Librarian: an individual who holds a valid Nevada license issued by the Superintendent of Public Instruction with an endorsement as a school library media specialist and who is employed by a school district as a librarian or school library media specialist. The rubric consists of two categories and three domains. The Educational Practice Category consists of the Instructional Practice and Professional Responsibilities Domains. The Student Performance Category is comprised of the Student Performance Domain, as measured by a student learning (SLG) or library program goal(LPG). Each domain is weighted differently as approved by the TLC and the State Board of Education. For the 2018-2019 school year, the Instructional Practice and Professional Responsibilities are each weighted at 30% while the Student Performance Domain is weighted at 40%.
School Counselor: an individual who holds a valid Nevada license issued by the Superintendent of Public Instruction with an endorsement as a School Counselor and is working in that position. The rubric consists of one category (Educational Practice) and one domain (Professional Responsibilities). The domain is weighted, as approved by the TLC and the State Board of Education, for the 2018-2019 school year at 100%.
School Nurse: a professional school nurse (BS/RN) who holds a valid Nevada license issued by the Superintendent of Public Instruction with a school nurse endorsement, and is working in that position. The rubric consists of one category (Educational Practice) and one domain (Professional Practice). The domain is weighted, as approved by the TLC and the State Board of Education, for the 2018-2019 school year at 100%.
School Psychologist: an individual who holds a valid Nevada license issued by the Superintendent of Public Instruction with an endorsement as a School Psychologist and is working in that position. The rubric consists of one category (Educational Practice) and one domain (Professional Performance). The domain is weighted, as approved by the TLC and the State Board of Education, for the 2018-2019 school year at 100%.
School Social Worker: an individual who holds a valid Nevada license issued by the Superintendent of Public Instruction with a School Social Work endorsement, and is working in that position. The rubric consists of one category (Educational Practice) and one domain (Professional Responsibilities). The domain is weighted, as approved by the TLC and the State Board of Education, for the 2018-2019 school year at 100%.
The passage of AB 222 during the 2011 legislative session created the Teachers and Leaders Council (TLC) and outlined the expectations for a statewide performance evaluation system of teacher and school administrators. After the 2013 legislative session, the Department of Education assembled workgroups of individuals in the respective Other Licensed Educational Personnel (OLEP) groups to develop standards and indicators based on those published by their respective state and national associations.
The NEPF evaluation cycle consists of a self-assessment, pre-evaluation conference, goal setting, observations, mid-cycle reviews, and end-of-cycle summative evaluation conference. Embracing each component empowers the educator being evaluated to engage in reflective and continuous professional growth.
Per the State Board of Education, all educators, including school- level teachers, administrators, principal supervisors, and other licensed personnel (OLEP) will utilize the NEPF by the 2018-2019 school year. TOSAs, PFs, Instructional coaches, consultants, etc. are not included in the statewide evaluation system and are to be evaluated using measures approved by local districts or school boards based on role/function.
The OLEP groups have their own protocols that outline their evaluation frameworks. All groups, except Teacher-Librarians, use the same document called the Other Licensed Educational Personnel (OLEP) Protocols. Teacher-Librarians are to use the Teacher-Librarian Protocols.
The only OLEP group that has a Student Performance Domain and required student learning or library program goal (SLG/ LPG) is the Teacher-Librarian. All educational professionals using NEPF frameworks MUST set a Professional Practice Goal (PPG). However, the PPG is NOT scored in the educator’s evaluation.
The state supports the Regional Professional Development Program (RPDP) to administer trainings on the Standards, Indicators, and SLGs for the Teacher and Administrator NEPF Frameworks. There are currently no offerings available specific to OLEP.
The overall purpose of the NEPF is to identify effective instruction and leadership, and to establish criteria to determine:
The passage of AB 222 during the 2011 Legislative Session created a 15-member Teachers and Leaders Council (TLC) to develop a statewide performance evaluation system for teachers and school administrators. This group was comprised of 11 members selected by the governor from recommendations made by stakeholder groups and 4 approved by the state superintendent and the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) chancellor. These members brought expertise in PreK-12 standards, curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, personnel evaluation, professional development, parent involvement, and public policy, critical elements identified in driving Nevada’s next-generation accountability system. The TLC began meeting in October 2011 and met on more than 25 occasions. The first phase of their work concluded in December 2012 with an appearance before the State Board of Education to begin the regulatory process.
The TLC made a deliberate decision to focus on high leverage instructional practices based on input from guidance by national experts and with the reinforcement of research demonstrating that by narrowing the scope to the assessment of instructional practice and professional development, the TLC will broaden the depth and breadth of the system. The domains were determined by a rigorous review of existing standards, including the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), as well as examples of other state standards such as Iowa, Colorado, and Delaware. The standards were based on a vast body of empirical evidence demonstrating an immediate and important connection to fostering student success in post-secondary environments by building students’ 21st century skills so that they graduate college and are career-ready. The performance indicators for each standard and the corresponding rubrics were developed by Dr. Margaret Heritage of the University of California, Los Angeles National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), and her team. The rubrics and associated performance levels to assess the indicators were designed to look at teacher and student behavior, with a focus on outcomes, not process results. Dr. Heritage and her team prepared a research synthesis documenting the empirical research supporting the focus on these five (5) high leverage instructional standards.
Consistent with the legislative charge, the TLC continues to meet to further develop and refine the statewide performance evaluation system for Nevada educators.
Please refer to the Teachers and Leaders Council Membership page found at http://www.doe.nv.gov/Boards_Commissions_Councils/Teachers_and_Leaders_Council/Members/.
All teachers, building administrators and other licensed educational personnel (as defined in the NEPF Protocols) who are employees of a public school district are required to be evaluated using the NEPF. This list is inclusive of teachers across all educational settings and contexts, school level administrators, principal supervisors, school nurses, school counselors, school psychologists, school social workers, speech-language pathologists, educational audiologists, and teacher-librarians.
Yes, completing the self-assessment form will aid in the Goal Setting process. Embracing the self-assessment step of the process empowers the educator being evaluated to shape the conversation by stating what they identify as strengths, the areas on which they want to focus, and what support they will need.
SLGs are long-term, measurable, academic goals set for students to accomplish by the end of a course. SLGs should be horizontally and vertically aligned, when applicable. To develop horizontally aligned goals, all teachers in the same grade level and/or content area should collaborate to set SLGs and then each teacher should set specific targets based upon his or her own students’ baseline knowledge and skills. The Goal Setting and Planning Tool is used to guide the process.
No, they set SLGs based on their content standards and/or college and career readiness standards (depending on needs assessment).
Setting targets for the SLG can be complex. Each teacher should set specific targets based upon his or her own students’ baseline knowledge and trend data to help set appropriate SLG targets. Targets should be ambitious and feasible for the students identified. Tiered targets may be necessary to address the needs of all students in the class (e.g. students performing in the lowest third of the class may have an alternate end of course target than students performing at higher levels on the baseline assessment).
The Teachers and Leaders Council has recommended that the assessments must meet a ll of the following criteria:
Yes, with evaluator approval. SLGs are meant to be adaptable and responsive to student need. They are not dependent on the availability of statewide standardized assessment scores. They can also be adjusted or revised based on changes in standards, curriculum, student population, and/or student need.
The educator uses the Self-Assessment Tool and/or previous evaluation to identify and set a professional practice goal. The goal should align and provide support for the SLG. Progress toward the PPG should be discussed during the Mid-Cycle Goal Review process.
The Pre-Observation Conference should precede each scheduled observation cycle. This provides the educator an opportunity to discuss needs and evidence for the strategies used. It is also recommended that the educator being evaluated leads these discussions and provides the rationale for the basis of his/her instructional practices. This is also a good time for the educator to discuss the context of their class(es) including, but not necessarily limited to, student to teacher ratio considerations, student characteristics that impact instructional practices, specific procedures the teacher has in place and purpose for the procedures, information from previous lessons and where students are in the continuum etc.
“Scheduled” (announced) observations are those observations for which prior notice is given and a pre-observation conference has been held. The minimum number of scheduled observations is differentiated according to experience and performance as outlined in the Differentiated Evaluation Cycle (Figure 3 of the NEPF Protocols). For teachers, each scheduled classroom observation, as one component of the teacher evaluation, needs to be conducted for a minimum of twenty minutes.
The Post-Observation Conference should be a joint discussion between the educator and evaluator. This is a time during which the evaluator and educator discuss additional evidence related to what happened prior to and after the observation to highlight the continuum of instruction. In addition, the evaluator should provideexplicit feedback on performance, and educator professional learning needs are discussed and identified. Based on observations and evidence, if an educator’s performance is likely to be rated ineffective or developing, the evaluator uses the Educator Assistance Plan Tool to develop and implement an assistance plan pursuant to NRS 391.695 and/or 391.715. Early support is best; therefore, this tool should be used to provide assistance to educators at any time during the evaluation cycle.
Yes, a conference should be held mid-year to discuss educator progress towards attaining goals (both the SLG and Professional Practice Goal) and performance on all NEPF Standards and Indicators.
This step is used to prompt reflection, promote dialogue between the educator and evaluator, and plan changes to practice, and/or goals, as necessary. The Mid-Cycle Goal Review is the time when the educator and evaluator formally meet to discuss students’ progress toward the SLG, and the educator’s performance (including progress toward the Professional Practice Goal) to date. At this time, the educator and evaluator may choose to revise the SLG, if appropriate. In addition, if an educator is having difficulty, the Mid-Cycle review allows the evaluator to provide the educator with the assistance required.
Thoughtful summative evaluation identifies trends and patterns in performance and offers feedback for improvement. It also provides the educator with valuable information that strengthens self-reflection and analysis skills.
For those who receive a Highly Effective rating for two consecutive years, the final summative evaluation requirement is waived the following year. During the subsequent school year, educators who have met this criterion will continue to participate in the observation cycle, which includes setting a SLG and PPG, for formative evaluation and professional growth purposes.
For the 2019-2020 school year, the TLC has recommended, and State Board has approved, the following domain weights: For teachers and administrators, 65% of Instructional Practice, 20% for Professional Responsibilities, and 15% for Student Learning Goals (SLG).
The passage of SB475 revised Chapter 391 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). These changes include, but are not limited to, the evaluation of other licensed educational personnel, the reduction of the Student Outcomes Domain weight from 40 to 15 percent, consideration of class size, and revisions regarding the impact of the rating of Developing for probationary and post-probationary employees. Additionally, the Department has been charged to develop an electronic tool for evaluations in collaboration with educational stakeholders and to contract a study of the impact and validity of the statewide performance evaluation system.