2017 Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policy
The state should ensure that teachers receive feedback about their performance and should require professional development to be based on needs identified through teacher evaluations. This goal was reorganized in 2017.
Evaluation Feedback: Nevada requires that teachers receive a copy of each evaluation not later than 15 days after the evaluation.
Professional Development: Nevada does not specify that professional development activities must be aligned with findings from teacher evaluations.
Improvement Plans: Nevada does not require that teachers with less-than-effective ratings are placed on improvement plans. Nevada only vaguely requires evaluations to include "recommendations for improvements in the performance of the teacher" and "a description of the action that will be taken to assist the teacher in the areas of instructional practice, professional responsibilities and the performance of pupils."
Evaluation Rating Categories: Nevada requires four rating categories: highly effective, effective, developing, and ineffective.
NRS 391.298, -.3125 2016-2017 Protocol: http://www.doe.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/ndedoenvgov/content/Educator_Effectiveness/Educator_Develop_Support/NEPF/Tools_Protocols/2016-2017NEPFProtocolsAppendices.pdf
Require that evaluation systems provide teachers with feedback about their performance.
Although Nevada requires teachers to receive copies of their evaluations, this only ensures that teachers will receive their ratings, not necessarily feedback on their performance. Nevada should specify that teachers should receive specific feedback on identified strengths and areas that need improvement.
Ensure that professional development is aligned with findings from teachers' evaluations.
Professional development that is not informed by evaluation results may be of little value to teachers' professional growth and the aim of increasing their effectiveness in the classroom. Nevada should ensure that districts utilize teacher evaluation results in determining professional development needs and activities.
Ensure that teachers receiving less-than-effective ratings are placed on a professional improvement plan.
Nevada should adopt a policy requiring that teachers who receive even one less-than-effective evaluation rating are placed on structured improvement plans. These plans should focus on performance areas that directly connect to student learning and should identify noted deficiencies, define specific action steps necessary to address these deficiencies, and describe how and when progress will be measured.
Nevada was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that enhanced this analysis. The state also indicated that its Commission on Professional Standards held a public workshop on September 20, 2017, to revise Nevada Administrative Code 391.065 and 391.075, proposing that renewal requirements be based on professional development completed in alignment with performance evaluation standards and indicators. Following a future public hearing and adoption by the Legislative Commission, it is anticipated that this will begin with the 2018-2019 school year.
Nevada also noted that it requires "recommendations for improvements in the performance" and a "description of the action that will be taken to assist" as part of its teacher evaluations. Further, an Educator Assistance Plan is to be completed as part of the mid-cycle goals review (or sooner, as necessary) between the teacher and supervisor.
NCTQ looks forward to reviewing the state's progress in future editions of the Yearbook.
7D: Linking Evaluation to Professional Growth
Professional development should be connected to needs identified through teacher evaluations. The goal of teacher evaluation systems should be not just to identify highly effective teachers and those who underperform but to help all teachers improve. Even highly effective teachers may have areas where they can continue to grow and develop their knowledge and skills. Rigorous evaluations should provide actionable feedback on teachers' strengths and weaknesses that can form the basis of professional development activities. Too often professional development is random rather than targeted to the identified needs of individual teachers. Failure to make the connection between evaluations and professional development squanders the likelihood that professional development will be meaningful.
Many states are only explicit about tying professional development plans to evaluation results if the evaluation results are bad. Good evaluations with meaningful feedback should be useful to all teachers, and if done right should help design professional development plans for all teachers—not just those who receive poor ratings.
To further increase the utility and validity of evaluation systems, states should require that evaluation instruments differentiate among various levels of teacher performance rather than only giving binary satisfactory/unsatisfactory ratings. Binary rating systems often offer little meaning because virtually all teachers receive satisfactory ratings. More rating categories allow for more nuanced distinctions between levels of teacher performance.