Skip to Content

Evaluations


NEPF Resources Primer

This NEPF resources primer provides quick references and links to NEPF standards, indicators, performance level descriptors, ratings information, and supportive training modules. Teachers are encouraged to review the NEPF training module website including the Additional Resources tab, and the full Performance Level descriptors for the Instructional Practice and Professional Responsibilities Standards on a recurring basis and prior to observations.

NEPF Professional Development Modules and Additional Resources

For evaluation preparation and practice view video modules of sample lessons and review the materials under the Additional Resources tab on the NEPF Professional Development web page:
http://www.cse.ucla.edu/nevada-professional-development/index.htm 

Evaluation Standards, Indicators, Performance Level Descriptors, Evidence

There are five Instructional Practice Standards with a total of 19 indicators and five Professional Responsibility Standards with a total of 15 indicators by which teachers are evaluated. Student performance will be factored in evaluations beginning with the 2016-17 school year.

NEPF Instructional Standards

1) New Learning is Connected to Prior Learning and Experience- 4 indicators

2) Learning Tasks have High Cognitive Demand for Diverse Learners- 4 indicators

3) Students Engage in Meaning-Making through Discourse and Other Strategies- 4 indicators

4) Students Engage in Metacognitive Activity to Increase Understanding of and Responsibility for Their 
     Own Learning- 3 indicators

5) Assessment is Integrated into Instruction- 4 indicators

Professional Responsibilities Standards

1) Commitment to the School Community- 3 indicators

2) Reflection on Professional Growth and Practice- 3 indicators

3) Professional Obligations- 3 indicators

4) Family Engagement- 3 indicators

5) Student Perception- 3 indicators 

NEPF Performance Levels

The NEPF has 4 Performance Levels that include descriptors with differentiating words intended to distinguish the effectiveness of teaching and learning behaviors observed by the evaluator. Evaluators will also utilize evidence of teaching and learning provided by the teacher and students in determining evaluations.

NEPF Performance Levels list 4 as the highest and 1 as the lowest for determining performance of each indicator:

Highly Effective = Level 4
Effective = Level 3
Minimally Effective = Level 2
Ineffective = Level 1

For example, listed below are the indicators and performance level descriptors with key differentiating words highlighted for Instructional Practice Standard 1:

Standard 1: New Learning is Connected to Prior Learning
Indicator 1: Teacher activates all students’ initial understandings of new concepts and skills

Level 4: Teacher fully activates all students’ initial understandings (including misconceptions and incomplete understandings) through the use of multiple methods and-or modes*

Level 3: Teacher adequately activates most students’ initial understandings (including misconceptions and incomplete understandings) by using at least two methods and/or two modes

Level 2: Teacher inadequately activates most students’ initial understandings (including misconceptions and incomplete understandings) using limited methods and/or modes

Level 1: Teacher activates no or almost no students’ initial understandings

* Methods = Teacher questions, provides tasks, asks for free recall, structures discussion
   Modes = Students respond orally, make diagrams, write, draw, describe 

Performance Level Descriptor Key Differentiating Words

The key differentiating words are highlighted in bold throughout many of the performance level descriptors in the training materials:

Highly Effective
(Level 4) 

 Effective
(Level 3)

Minimally Effective
(Level 2) 

Ineffective
(Level 1)
 

 All Students          Most Students  Most Students*  No or Almost All
 Fully  Adequate(ly)  Some or Few  Little
 Clear(ly)  Generally  Insufficiently  
 Effective(ly)  Sufficiently  Minimal(ly)  
 Appropriate    Limited  
 Successful(ly)    Somewhat  
Inadequately

To review the descriptors for the Key Differentiating Words click:
http://www.cse.ucla.edu/nevada-professional-development/download/Descriptors_of_Performance.pdf

To review all highlighted differentiating words see the Performance Level Descriptors in the Teacher Instructional Standards Rubric here:
file:///C:/Users/mike.mclamore/Downloads/TCH.Stand%20%20Ind%20Rubric%20(Evidence%20%20Descriptions.IP)%20(1)%20(7).pdf

Or the Guidance for the Use of the Nevada Instructional Evaluation Protocol, Part 1 here:
http://www.cse.ucla.edu/nevada-professional-development/download/Guidance_Part1_v4.pdf

Evidence Sources for Instructional Practice Standards and Indicators

NEPF evaluator training specifies that the evaluator must include at least two evidence sources of instructional practice for determining teacher performance on each indicator:

1) Direct Evaluator Observation
2) One Confirmatory Item from Optional Evidence Source

For many indicators, optional evidence can be any of the confirmatory items on the list of optional evidence sources. For other indicators, the evidence source is specified based on the indicator.

List of Evidence Sources

• Artifact of the representation and/or its creation, interpretation, or use of the representation
• Audio/visual/print artifact
• Direct evaluator observation
• Lesson plan
• Prior student work/assessment informing planned learning opportunities
• Student classroom interviews
• Student feedback (e.g. survey, writing)
• Student work
• Teacher notes
• Teacher pre/post conference
• Written feedback on student work

Evidence sources are described beginning in page 7 of the Guidance for the Nevada Instructional Evaluation Protocol Part 1
http://www.cse.ucla.edu/nevada-professional-development/download/Guidance_Part1_v4.pdf

Descriptors of Evidence Sources can be found here:
http://www.cse.ucla.edu/nevada-professional-development/download/List_of_EvidenceSources_and_Descriptors.pdf 

NEPF Evaluation Process and Newsletter Sign Up Opportunity

There are five steps to the NEPF evaluation process.

Step   Timeline
 Step 1: Educator Self-Assessment  Late Summer/Early Fall
 Step 2: Pre-Evaluation Conference  Early Fall
 Step 3: Observations and Conferences  Throughout School Year
 Step 4: Mid Cycle Goals Review  Mid-Year
 Step 5: Post Evaluation Conference and
      End-of-Cycle Summative Evaluation
 Late Spring/Summer

 

A brief explanation of the evaluation process steps is outlined in the September 2015 NDE Educator Effectiveness Newsletter.
http://www.doe.nv.gov/Educator_Effectiveness/Educator_Develop_
Support/NEPF/Newsletters/
 

NEPF Newsletter Sign Up Form
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/168q9bTOx3O_GR83_Kn0eP_
99u1Lgz6oZ9XYCxVBCKp4/viewform

NEPF Summative Evaluation Ratings and Weightings

The following point ranges have been adopted for determining the overall NEPF final summative rating:

Highly Effective = 3.6 - 4.00   Minimally Effective = 1.91 - 2.79
Effective = 2.8 - 3.59  Ineffective = 1.90 and below

The requirement that student performance on state assessments count for 50% of a teacher’s evaluation has been removed by passage of AB 447.  The new law allows local and state assessment data to be used in evaluations and phases-in the use of student assessment data as follows:

Year 

Instructional Practice 

Professional Responsibilities 

Student Outcomes 

  2015-2016    

80%

20%

0%

2016-2017

60%

20%

20%

2017-2018

45%

15%

40%

 Professional Responsibilities Standards, Indicators, Performance Levels, Evidence

To view the Professional Responsibilities Standards, indicators, and evidence requirements see the NEPF Protocols here:
http://www.doe.nv.gov/Educator_Effectiveness/Educator_Develop_
Support/NEPF/Tools_and_Protocols/

Major NEPF Materials Web Addresses:

Teacher and Administrator NEPF Training by CRESST- NEPF standards, indicators, performance level descriptors, sample lessons and reviews
http://www.cse.ucla.edu/nevada-professional-development/index.htm

Guidance for the Use of the Nevada Instructional Evaluation Protocol, Part 1 here: http://www.cse.ucla.edu/nevada-professional-development/download/
Guidance_Part1_v4.pdf

NV Department of Education NEPF Tools and Protocols- evaluation forms
http://www.doe.nv.gov/Educator_Effectiveness/Educator_
Develop_Support/NEPF/Tools_and_Protocols/

NV Department of Education NEPF Overview and Resource Links
http://www.doe.nv.gov/Educator_Development_and_
Support/Nevada_Educator_Performance_Framework(NEPF)/

Department of Education Workshop Addresses
Moral Turpitude

NSEA Public Policy and Education Specialist Mike McLamore recently attended the Nevada Department of Education (NDE) regulation workshop on "moral turpitude." NSEA, through its law firm, submitted written recommendations on how moral turpitude should be defined and considered in licensure determinations. NSEA attends and offers opinions at workshops such as this one because of the impact decisions from these workshops could have on our members and public education in Nevada.  
 
Several teachers gave remarks on how they recently received notices their license was being either revoked or denied due to offenses committed in the distant past not connected to their work as educators. Representatives from University Nevada Reno (UNR) and the Washoe County School District (WCSD) urged flexibility on how moral turpitude is defined and described how they work with teacher candidates or employees on an individual basis who are flagged for offenses that could impact their license.
 
NDE staff presented statistics on the process they undergo now and proposed a menu of offenses with lifetime, 5-year, and 10-year ban stipulations. NDE staff expressed concerns that limited resources and staff created a sense of hardship and the need for a menu of offenses. They reported that of 18,000 applicants this past year, 65 were denied based on offenses they are using to make the determinations. Interim Superintendent Canavero remarked that the low number seemed to suggest that a deliberative process could be sustainable.
 
The idea of establishing an advisory group of educators and possibly law enforcement to review cases and make recommendations to the superintendent was brought up. There was some question on needing statutory authority to establish a commission or similar body but an informal advisory group established by the superintendent might be allowable.
 
The next step in the process will be for Interim Superintendent Canavero to make any adjustments to the draft that he determines and submit it to the Legislative Council Bureau for updating and posting prior to a rule hearing in the future. NSEA will continue to monitor this issue and will post updates in future e-newsletters and on the website.
 

TAKE ACTION

invis_img
E-mail your Legislators:

Embed This Page (x)

Select and copy this code to your clipboard