Principal Effectiveness: Nevada

2017 Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policy

Goal

The state should meaningfully assess principal performance. This goal was new in 2017.

Nearly meets

Analysis of Nevada's policies

Objective Student Growth Measures: Nevada requires Student Learning Goals (SLGs)—district-level performance measures—to count for 20 percent of the total evaluation score for the 2017-2018 school year, and 40 percent beginning in the 2018-2019 school year. Student learning data must not be included in the evaluation rating for a first-year principal.

Nevada requires principals to earn one of the three highest SLG rubric scores (two, three, or four) to be eligible for an overall rating of effective. To be eligible for an overall rating of highly effective, principals must earn one of the two highest SLG rubric scores (three or four).

Link to Teacher Effectiveness/Instructional Leadership: Nevada requires that principal evaluations include "an evaluation of the instructional leadership practices"; however, there is no link connecting this evaluation to teacher effectiveness.

Improvement Plans: Nevada requires that principal evaluations include "recommendations for improvements in the performance of the administrator" and "a description of the action that will be taken to assist the administrator in the areas of instructional leadership, professional responsibilities, and the performance of pupils."

Surveys: Nevada allows for the use of evaluation by students or other administrators to be included as part of the overall principal evaluation.

Citation

Recommendations for Nevada

Make an explicit link between principal evaluation and teacher effectiveness/instructional leadership.
Because the time principals spend on organizational management, instructional programming, and teacher evaluation is critically important for positive effects on both teachers and students, Nevada should evaluate its principals—to some degree—on teacher effectiveness and instructional leadership.

State response to our analysis

Nevada was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that enhanced this analysis. The state also indicated that with the passage of Assembly Bill 320 during the 2017 legislative session, the following additional changes related to student performance measures have been made to the statewide educator evaluation system:

  • Federally reported statewide performance measures are no longer a required component of the student performance category.
  • The State Board shall establish by regulation the criteria for SLGs, which must measure growth against an objective academic standard and demonstrate at least one year of educational attainment. The Department held a Public Workshop to establish these criteria on August 17, 2017.
  • The Department will work with districts, the Teachers and Leaders Council, and other subject matter experts, to create a list of assessments that may be used by districts/schools to measure progress toward SLGs.
  • District boards of trustees are required to ensure that SLGs measure student growth in accordance with the criteria established by the State Board, and must annually review the manner in which districts/schools implement the NEPF.
  • The State Board may establish regulations regarding the manner in which to include SLGs for certain categories of students. (i.e., partial attendance, truancy, mobility).
Nevada also noted that "recommendations for improvements in the performance…and a description of the action that will be taken to assist…" is to be completed as part of the mid-cycle goals review (or sooner, as necessary) between the school administrator and supervisor.

Updated: December 2017

How we graded

7G: Principal Effectiveness

  • Student Growth: The state should require objective measures of student growth to be used in part to determine principal effectiveness.
  • Evaluation and Instructional Leadership: The state should require principal evaluations to contain an explicit link to teacher effectiveness or instructional leadership.
  • Improvement Plans: The state should require that all principals who are rated as less than effective be placed on improvement plans.
  • Surveys: The state should require or explicitly allow surveys (e.g., school climate, teacher, student, school community) to be used in part to determine principal effectiveness.
Student Growth
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following: 

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it requires objective measures of student growth to be used in part to determine principal effectiveness.
Evaluation and Instructional Leadership
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following: 

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if principal evaluations contain an explicit link to teacher effectiveness or instructional leadership.
Improvement Plans
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it requires principals who have been rated as ineffective to be placed on improvement plans.
Surveys
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following: 

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it requires or explicitly allows surveys (e.g., school climate, teacher, student, school community) to be used in part to determine principal effectiveness.

Research rationale

Research demonstrates that there is a clear link between school leadership and school outcomes.[1] Principals foster school improvement by shaping school goals, policies and practices, and social and organizational structures.[2] Principals vary significantly in their effectiveness, and research suggests that high-quality principals positively affect student achievement, in-school discipline, parents' perceptions of schools, and school climates.[3] Further, principals affect teacher retention and recruitment;[4] effective principals are more adept at retaining effective teachers and removing ineffective teachers.[5] The time principals spend on organizational management, instructional programming, and teacher evaluation is critically important for positive effects on teachers and students.[6] Because principals are an essential component of creating successful schools, their effectiveness should be regularly evaluated by trained evaluators on systems that include objective measures. Such systems will help to ensure that all principals receive the feedback and support necessary to improve their practice and, ultimately, student and school outcomes.


[1] Clifford, M., Hansen, U. J., & Wraight, S. (2014). Practical guide to designing comprehensive principal evaluation systems: A tool to assist in the development of principal evaluation systems. Center on Great Teachers and Leaders.; Rice, J. K. (2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of accountability (Brief 8). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.; Glasman, N. S., & Heck, R. H. (1992). The changing leadership role of the principal: Implications for principal assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 68(1), 5-24.
[2] Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
[3] Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2012). Estimating the effect of leaders on public sector productivity: The case of school principals (No. w17803). National Bureau of Economic Research.; Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L. Anderson, S. E., Michlin, M., & Mascall, B. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement/University of Minnesota and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto, 42, 50.; Clark, D., Martorell, P., & Rockoff, J. (2009). School principals and school performance (No. w17803). National Bureau of Economic Research.; Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: A review of research for the Learning from Leadership Project. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
[4] Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Education Research Journal, 48(2), 303-333; Kimball, S. (2011). Strategic talent management for principals. In Strategic management of human capital in education: Improving instructional practice and student learning in schools (pp. 133-152). New York, NY: Routledge Publishing; Rice, J. K. (2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of accountability (Brief 8). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.; Clark, D., Martorell, P., & Rockoff, J. (2009). School principals and school performance (No. w17803). National Bureau of Economic Research. 
[5] Beteille, T., Kalogrides, D., Loeb, S. (2009). Effective schools: Managing the recruitment, development, and retention of high-quality teachers (Working Paper 37). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
[6] Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091-1123.; Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal's time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491-523.; Catano, N., & Stronge, J. H. (2007). What do we expect of school principals? Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(4), 379-399.