Step 5:
Summative Evaluation and
Post-Evaluation Conference

The final step is the summative evaluation, which completes a full evaluation cycle. In this step, the evaluator reviews and analyzes the Observation/Evidence Review Tool (Admin: Observation/Evidence Review Tool) data, gathers additional evidence and insights from the educator (if necessary), and identifies performance levels on the NEPF Indicators to determine Standard scores and the overall rating.  A constructive 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.

Scoring of the Educational Practice Category:

• • • The evaluator uses the data from the Observation/Evidence Review Tool (Admin: Observation/Evidence Review Tool) and any additional evidence documented throughout the cycle to identify the appropriate performance levels for each Indicator following the Teacher Instructional Practice Standards (Administrator Instructional Leadership Standards) and the Teacher Professional Responsibilities Standards (Administrator Professional Responsibilities Standards) rubrics (see also the NEPF Descriptor Key Words/ Admin: NEPF Descriptor Key Words).

    • The evaluator inputs the performance levels into the Summative Evaluation Tool (Admin: Summative Evaluation). Performance levels selected may range from 1 to 4 (whole numbers only).

    • The Indicator performance levels are then used to calculate the score for each Standard. This is done by averaging all performance levels for each Standard.

    • Overall scores for Instructional Practice (teacher)/Instructional Leadership (administrator)/Leadership (principal supervisor) and Professional Responsibilities are calculated by averaging the scores for each Standard.

    • The final Educational Practice score (unadjusted) is then determined by adding the weighted Instructional Practice (teacher)/Instructional Leadership (administrator) and Professional Responsibilities scores on the Summative Evaluation Tool (Admin: Summative Evaluation). See Appendix A (administrator) or Appendix B (teacher) for the weights.

    • Post-probationary teachers and teacher-librarians who provide direct, regular instruction and who are designated as effective or highly effective will be awarded an additional weight (adjusted score) in certain Standards and Indicators equivalent to the percentage by which the ratio of pupils for which the teacher is responsible exceeds the recommended ratio of pupils per licensed teacher (see recommended ratios below). The adjusted score is not to exceed the maximum score that would otherwise be possible for a teacher rated as highly effective (4). The Standards and Indicators that are eligible for the additional weight are:

      • • The manner in which the teacher employs the cognitive abilities and skills of all pupils, Instructional Practice Standard 2 Indicator 1 (IPS 2.1),

        • The manner in which the teacher provides an opportunity for extended discourse (IPS 3.1),

        • The manner in which the teacher structures a classroom environment (IPS 3.4),

        • The manner in which the teacher engages with the families of pupils, Professional Responsibilities Standard 4 (PRS 4), and

        • The perception of pupils of the performance of the teacher (PRS 5) (PRS 5 does not apply to teacher-librarians).

Scoring of the Student Performance Category:

Student performance is an important part of the evaluation and is measured via the Goal Setting and Planning Guide (see Appendix D). The educator shares the data gathered throughout the SLG process. The evaluator reviews the data and uses the SLG Scoring Rubric to determine an SLG score of 1 to 4 based on the progress made toward previously set targets. This number is then weighted and becomes the Student Performance Domain score of the Summative Evaluation. See Appendix A (administrator) or Appendix B (teacher) for the weight.

NOTE:  Pursuant to NRS 391.695 and NRS 391.715, student performance measures are not to be included in the evaluation of educators in their initial year of probation.

Evaluation Conference:

During the final evaluation conference, the educator and evaluator review the evidence on which the final rating was determined and discuss the scores and feedback given within the Summative Evaluation Tool (Admin: Summative Evaluation).

The final scoring ranges used to determine the final rating for educators were recommended by the TLC and approved by the State Board of Education for the 2021-22 school year and beyond.

Educators must:

• Demonstrate an SLG rubric score of 2, 3, or 4 to be eligible to receive an Effective summative rating.

• Demonstrate an SLG rubric score of 3 or 4 to be eligible to receive a Highly Effective summative rating.

For educators who receive a Highly Effective rating for two consecutive years, the final summative evaluation requirement is waived the following year; however, educators who meet this criterion are expected to participate in the evaluation cycle. Evaluators complete the Summative Evaluation Exemption Verification Tool. During the subsequent school year, educators who met this criterion will once again participate in the evaluation cycle and receive a summative evaluation (three-year cycle: 2 years of earning a Highly Effective summative rating + one year of a summative evaluation waiver).

NOTE: NRS 391.725, as updated by SB 475 passed during the 80th Legislative Session, describes the statement that must be included on the evaluation of a probationary educator if he or she is to receive a rating of ‘Ineffective.’ The statement reads as follows: 

“Please be advised that, pursuant to Nevada law, your contract may not be renewed for the next school year. If you receive an ‘ineffective’ evaluation and are reemployed for a second or third year of your probationary period, you may request that your next evaluation be conducted by another administrator. You may also request, to the administrator who conducted the evaluation, reasonable assistance in improving your performance based upon the recommendations reported in the evaluation for which you request assistance, and upon such request, a reasonable effort will be made to assist you in improving your performance.”