SB 460 would expand teacher and administrator evaluation rules, allow performance improvement plans and possible reversion to probationary status

The bill revises the Nevada Educator Performance Framework to add tiered interventions and student‑growth measures and to require additional supports and consequences for educators and administrators rated ineffective or minimally effective.

"The act also revises provisions regarding the Nevada Educator Performance Framework, again introducing tiered systems of intervention and supports in sections 38 and 49 through 52," Steve Canavero said during the hearing. "Teachers and administrators must undertake, performance improvement plans if they're minimally effective or ineffective for 2 consecutive years with increased professional support, mentoring, and monitoring."

Canavero told the committee that persistent failure to meet benchmarks within the two‑year period could “result in a reversion to probationary status, a reassignment, demotion, or removal.” He said the framework is intended to strengthen supports — not immediately punish — and to preserve due process and contractual protections where they apply.

Assemblymember Flynn asked why replacing staff would be prioritized over investing in existing staff who know the school and its students. Canavero replied that assessment of the school leadership would happen before any personnel moves and that the provision is intended as one option among many, with a focus on the principal’s role. He said: "The focus in, the original 4 60 was at the principal level. Here, we sort of expanded to both the principal and the personnel at the school. So the assessment would happen before any movement occurs, to understand, are folks ready and prepared?"

The bill also includes liability protections for school employees who intervene to break up violent incidents when acting in good faith; the superintendent referenced those protections as located in sections 38.2 and 58.7 of the act.

Teacher organizations and local administrators raised concerns during testimony about how new evaluation requirements interact with collective bargaining and local control. Jeff Horn of the Clark County Association of School Administrators asked the committee to “recognize the limitations [principals] face” and said principals “must be empowered with greater authority, not less,” adding that principals are closest to the work on the ground.

Committee members and witnesses asked for clarification on how some statewide assessments would tie into evaluation for teachers in non‑tested grades and how educators teaching earlier grades would be assessed when the high‑school assessment (ACT) measures different courses and grades. Canavero said the bill includes permissive language for alternatives — such as course‑embedded assessments or teacher‑developed measures — where statewide growth measures are not directly available.

No formal committee action was taken at the hearing. Lawmakers signaled they expect further discussion about implementation, protections for educators, and the balance between support and sanctions before any final vote.