August 2018
National Educational Leadership
Preparation (NELP) Program
Recognition Standards
Building Level
Copyright © 2018 by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA)
All rights reserved.
How to cite:
NPBEA. (2018). National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Standards - Building Level.
Retrieved from: www.npbea.org.
Copies of the Standards may be obtained from the websites of NPBEA member organizations or by
directly contacting the NPBEA. http://www.npbea.org. The original work may be downloaded and
reprinted as long as the original work is credited. The original work cannot be changed or used for
commercial purposes. CC BY-NC-ND.
NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP PREPARATION (NELP)
PROGRAM STANDARDS
Building Level
The NELP building-level standards were designed for institutions
undergoing Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP)
accreditation and NELP program review . The NELP building-level standards
are appropriate for advanced programs at the master, specialist, or doctoral
level that prepare assistant principals, principals, curriculum directors,
supervisors, and other education leaders in a school building environment.
The NELP building-level standards are provided by the National
Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Specialized Professional
Association (SPA), sponsored by the National Policy Board for Educational
Administration (NPBEA).
Upon approval by the CAEP SPA Standards Committee, a full copy of the
NELP building-level standards can be obtained at www.npbea.org.
Contact Persons:
Michelle D. Young Joan Auchter
NELP Standards Committee, Chair NELP SPA Coordinator
405 Emmet St. S. 1904 Association Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22904 Reston, VA 20191
434.243.1040 (office) 703-860-7280 (office)
434.409.0065 (cell) 703-508-5835 (cell)
mdy8n@virginia.edu auchterj@nassp.org
i
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................1
Context ....................................................................................................................................................1
Development ..........................................................................................................................................3
What’s New? ............................................................................................................................................5
Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................6
Implementation ....................................................................................................................................... 8
This Document ........................................................................................................................................9
Standard 1: Mission, Vision, and Improvement ........................................................................................ 11
Standard 2: Ethics and Professional Norms ............................................................................................... 13
Standard 3: Equity, Inclusiveness, and Cultural Responsiveness .............................................................. 15
Standard 4: Learning and Instruction ........................................................................................................ 18
Standard 5: Community and External Leadership ..................................................................................... 21
Standard 6: Operations and Management ............................................................................................... 24
Standard 7: Building Professional Capacity .............................................................................................. 27
Standard 8: Internship ............................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix 1: Using NELP Standards for Program Evaluation ..................................................................... 31
NELP Standards 1–7: NELP Reviewer Evaluation Rubric ....................................................................... 33
NELP Standard 8: NELP Reviewer Evaluation Rubric ............................................................................ 37
Examples of Evidence of Candidate Competence ............................................................................... 41
NELP Building-Level Candidate Assessment Rubric Guidance ............................................................ 49
Policy Regarding NELP Program Report Recognition Decisions .......................................................... 71
Initial Program Report Decision Choices ............................................................................................. 72
Program Report Decision Choices for a Currently Recognized Program ............................................ 73
Appendix 2: Alignment of NELP Program Standards with CAEP Principles ............................................. 75
Appendix 3: Research Support for Standards ...........................................................................................82
References ............................................................................................................................................. 96
Appendix 4: Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................ 107
Appendix 5: NELP Reviewer Selection and Training ............................................................................... 116
Appendix 6: NELP Development Committees ........................................................................................ 120
Appendix 7: NELP Building–ELCC 2011–PSEL 2015 Crosswalk............................................................... 121
1
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Introduction
A historic shift is happening in the field of educational leadership. Policymakers, families, and
other constituents of PK-12 schools are increasingly holding education leaders accountable for the
academic success and personal well-being of every student. It is no longer enough to manage
school finances, maintain a spotless and safe building, and keep the buses running on time.
Education leaders must also provide clear evidence that the children in their care are being better
prepared for college, careers, and life. Importantly, no individual leader is able to accomplish these
goals alone. Today, education leadership is a collaborative effort distributed among a number
of professionals in schools and districts. School-level leaders include administrators, teacher
leaders, and department chairs. District leaders hold positions such as superintendents, curriculum
supervisors, talent management specialists, assessment directors, and professional development
providers. Their titles may vary, but they are all charged with the same fundamental challenge:
support every student’s learning and development.
Clear and consistent leadership standards can assist all educational stakeholders in understanding
these expectations (Canole & Young, 2013). Over the last three years, the Council for Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA),
with financial support from the Wallace Foundation, have led a significant effort to revise the
national standards that guide preparation and practice for educational leaders in the United States.
The NELP building-level standards are appropriate for advanced programs at the master, specialist,
or doctoral level that prepare assistant principals, principals, curriculum directors, supervisors, and
other education leaders in a school building environment. Rooted in both research and effective
practice, these standards provide a framework for understanding how to best prepare, support,
and evaluate education leaders in their efforts to help every child reach his or her fullest potential.
Context
CCSSO published the first set of national standards for educational leaders in 1996, followed by
a modest update in 2008 based on the empirical research at the time. Both versions provided
frameworks for policy on education leadership at the state level for almost 20 years. However,
the context in which schools currently operate continues to shift. Globalization, for example, is
transforming the economy and the 21st century workplace for which schools prepare students.
Technology, too, is advancing quickly, changing the nature of communication and learning.
The conditions and characteristics of children, in terms of demographics, family structures, and
more, are changing. On the education front, the politics of leadership and changes in leadership
personnel make the headlines. Cuts in school funding loom everywhere, even as schools are
subjected to increasingly competitive market pressures and held to higher levels of accountability
for student achievement.
Without question, such changes are creating myriad challenges for educational leaders. At the
same time, they present rich and exciting opportunities for educational leaders to innovate
2
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
and inspire staff to pursue new, creative approaches for improving schools and promoting
student learning. Since the crafting of the first set of educational leadership standards in 1996,
the profession of educational leadership has developed significantly. Educators have a better
understanding of how and in what ways leadership contributes to student achievement. An
expanding base of research demonstrates that educational leaders exert influence on student
achievement by creating challenging and supportive conditions that are conducive to each
student’s learning and by supporting teachers through creating positive working conditions,
allocating resources, constructing appropriate organizational policies and systems, and helping
them engage in other deep and meaningful work outside of the classroom. Given such changes, it
is clear that educational leaders need new standards to guide their practice in directions that will
be the most productive and beneficial to students.
In November 2015, the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL) were approved
by NPBEA. These standards, formerly known as the Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium(ISLLC) standards, are grounded in current research and leadership experience and
articulate the knowledge and skills expected of educational leaders (Canole & Young, 2013; CCSSO,
1996; CCSSO, 2008). PSEL has “a stronger, clearer emphasis on students and student learning,
outlining foundational principles of leadership to help ensure that each child is well-educated and
prepared for the 21st century” (CCSSO, 2015, p. 2). “They are student-centric, outlining foundational
principles of leadership to guide the practice of educational leaders so they can move the needle on
student learning and achieve more equitable outcomes” (CCSSO, 2015, p. 1).
The 2015 PSEL standards reflect the following leadership domains:
1. Mission, Vision, and Improvement
2. Ethics and Professional Norms
3. Equity and Cultural Responsiveness
4. Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
5. Community of Care and Support for Students
6. Professional Capacity of School Personnel
7. Professional Community for Teachers and Staff
8. Meaningful Engagement of Families and Community
9. Operations and Management
10. School Improvement
Significantly, each of the standards emphasizes both academic success and well-being. The PSEL
standards will be adopted or adapted by many states to guide policies concerning the practice and
improvement of educational leaders (e.g., licensure, evaluation, and professional learning policies).
In December 2015, a committee comprised of essential stakeholder communities from across the
country began developing a set of leadership preparation standards congruent to the PSEL. As
CAEP (2017) noted, consistency among standards “ensures a coherent continuum of expectations”
(p. 10). The preparation standards, formerly known as the Educational Leadership Constituent
Council or ELCC standards, have been renamed the National Educational Leadership Preparation
3
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
(NELP) standards and will be used to guide program design, accreditation review, and state
program approval.
While aligned to the PSEL standards, the NELP standards serve a different purpose and provide
greater specificity around performance expectations for beginning-level building and district
leaders. Whereas the PSEL standards define educational leadership broadly, the NELP standards
specify what novice leaders and preparation program graduates should know and be able to
do after completing a high-quality educational leadership preparation program. Like the ELCC
standards that preceded them, the NELP standards were developed specifically with building and
district leaders in mind and will be used to review educational leadership programs by the NELP
Specialty Professional Association (SPA) (formerly known as the ELCC SPA) of the Council for the
Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). There is one set of NELP standards for candidates
preparing to become building-level leaders and a second set of standards for candidates seeking
to become district-level leaders.
Development
The NELP standards for building-level leadership preparation address the most critical knowledge
and skill areas for beginning building-level educational leaders. These standards align to
national leadership practice standards and research on effective leadership practice, input from
key stakeholder communities, and the four CAEP principles—(A) The Learner and Learning,
(B) Content, (C) Instructional Practice, and (D) Professional Responsibility. (See Appendix 2 for
alignment between NELP and CAEP principles.) The NELP standards flow from a 17-month process
fostered by CCSSO, the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA), and NPBEA.
Recognizing the changes that have occurred in education leadership practice since the release of
the 2011 ELCC standards, the adoption of new standards and policies at the state level, and the
need to align to the new PSEL standards, a committee of educational leadership stakeholders
formed to collaboratively revise the 2011 ELCC standards. The committee members, who
represented practicing leaders, professional association representatives, state department
personnel, educational leadership faculty scholars, educational leadership preparation program
leaders, and college leadership (see Appendix 6 for a list) were selected based on the stakeholders
they represented as well as the expertise they brought to the committee.
The work of the NELP Standards Development Committee began as soon as the PSEL standards
were released in November 2015 and involved reviewing the CAEP guidelines and gathering input
from practitioners, state department of education representatives, and higher education faculty on
the 2011 ELCC standards (Young, 2016). This work was followed by a rigorous review of empirical
research supporting the PSEL standards and the preparation of building and district leaders
for high-performing schools and districts. This work also involved the development of several
crosswalks between important national and state leadership and educator preparation standards
and the development, review, external vetting, and editing of draft standards.
4
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Focus groups, which included practitioners, higher education faculty, state department personnel,
and professional association representatives and were hosted by a variety of leadership
professional associations, vetted early drafts. In addition to sharing and discussing the standards
during these focus groups, committee representatives also used the interactions to share key
sections of the CAEP guidelines, such as the limits on the number of standards and components,
the need to develop standards that are based on empirical research and measurable through six
to eight assessments, and the importance of aligning the standards to the four CAEP principles.
Feedback from the focus groups was analyzed and reviewed by committee members and then
used to further refine the standards. In May 2016, the standards were distributed widely, through
CAEP and NPBEA member organizations (CCSSO, UCEA, National Association of Secondary
School Principals (NASSP), National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), American
Association of School Administrators (AASA), American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education (AACTE), International Council of Professors of Educational Leadership (ICPEL)), for
public comment. Public comment revealed strong support, with 86 percent approving or strongly
approving the NELP standards and between 94 and 100 percent noting that the focus of the eight
standards was warranted. A summary of the survey data was shared with the field through NPBEA
organizations and used by the committee to inform revisions. The revised draft was presented to
and approved by NPBEA in July 2016 and then submitted to the CAEP SPA Standards Committee
for review and feedback.
Feedback from the CAEP SPA Standards Committee was received in October 2016 and shared
with the NELP committee. Based on this feedback, the NELP committee further reviewed research
on the preparation, evaluation, and practice of educational leaders; consulted with NPBEA
organizations, practicing school and district leaders, state education officials, researchers, higher
education leaders and faculty, and other policy-oriented constituents; and refined the draft
standards to ensure they included the most essential knowledge and skills as identified by research
and input from the field, can be achieved by candidates during the course of their preparation, and
can be assessed by programs. In May 2017, feedback from practicing leaders, higher education
faculty, and state officials was sought on a final draft of the NELP standards. The feedback
indicated overwhelming support for the standards’ focus, measurability, and ability to guide
effective leadership preparation.
At two points during the process of developing the NELP standards, analyses were conducted
to determine the existence of potential duplication and/or overlap in the standards, first after the
initial draft of the standards was developed and, subsequently, when the final draft was complete.
In conducting this analysis, standards and elements/components for each of the CAEP SPAs
were thoroughly reviewed, and no duplication was identified. However, it is important to point
out that educational leaders share a common goal of collaboration with varied school personnel,
including special education professionals as described by the Council for Exceptional Children
(CEC)school librarians as described by AASL, instructional technology specialists as described
by The ISTE, school psychologists as described by NASP, and classroom teachers. Furthermore,
educational leaders share a common goal of supporting the education of diverse learners. How
5
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
this is accomplished by these different educational professionals, however, is different. The NELP
standards (see, for example, Standard 3: Equity, Inclusiveness, and Cultural Responsiveness)
articulate the specific knowledge and skills that educational leaders need to lead, facilitate, and
collaborate with others in a mutual effort to achieve enhanced and equitable student learning.
What’s New?
The new NELP standards for building-level leaders reflect all of the elements of the 2011 ELCC
standards for building-level leaders and the majority of elements from the PSEL standards, as
demonstrated in the crosswalk in Appendix 7. When compared to the 2011 ELCC standards for
building-level leaders, there are several important additions. First, and perhaps most noticeable, is
the number of standards. The six content standards found in the 2011 ELCC standards have been
expanded to seven in the NELP standards. The expansion enabled the NELP committee to develop
standards that more closely reflect current understandings of school leadership, better align to the 10
PSEL standards, and more clearly delineate several core leadership functions. For example, the 2011
ELCC standards addressed core values, professional norms, ethics, and equity within one standard
(i.e., ELCC standard 6). The new NELP standards, like the 2015 PSEL standards, include one standard
for ethics and professional norms (NELP standard 2) and one for equity, inclusiveness, and cultural
responsiveness (NELP standard 3). These changes delineate expectations for educational leaders not
present in the previous ELCC standards, such as developing the knowledge and “capacity to evaluate,
communicate about, and advocate for ethical and legal decisions” (NELP standard 2, component 2) and
the knowledge and “capacity to evaluate, cultivate, and advocate for equitable, inclusive, and culturally
responsive instruction and behavior support practices among teachers and staff” (NELP standard 3,
component 3). Although CAEP includes the notion of ethical practice in its CAEP unit standards and
a focus on diversity among its core principles, it is essential that educational leadership preparation
standards address ethics and diversity in ways that attend to the specific professional responsibilities
of educational leaders. As such, they are included within the NELP leadership standards and stated in
terms of appropriate educational leadership candidate professional actions.
A second difference is represented within the stem statement of the NELP standards. The NELP
standards expand ELCC’s concern for supporting “the success of every student” to promoting the
“current and future success and well-being of each student and adult.” The focus on each student
and each adult reflects the focus on individual needs within the PSEL standards, which assert that
when a leader meets the needs of each individual, no subgroup will be missed.
A third difference in the 2018 NELP standards is the addition of the building-level leaders’
responsibility for the well-being of students and staff as well as their role in working with others
to create a supportive and inclusive school culture. In addition to being included in each of the
standard stem statements, this focus is found within components 2.1, 3.2, 4.3, and 7.2.
Fourth, the NELP standards articulate the building-level leaders’ role in ensuring equitable access
to educational resources and opportunities. Standard 3, which is a new standard with three
components, focuses on gaining “the knowledge, skills, and commitments necessary to develop
6
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
and maintain a supportive, equitable, culturally responsive, and inclusive school culture.” In
addition to standard 3, equity is also addressed in 4.2, 4.4, and 6.2.
A fifth difference between the two sets of standards is the NELP standards’ stronger focus on
assessment. For example, standard 4, component 3 focuses on the leaders’ role in evaluating,
developing, and implementing formal and informal culturally responsive and accessible
assessments that support instructional improvement and student learning and well-being.
Additionally, standard 4, component 4 requires program completers to understand and
demonstrate the capacity to collaboratively evaluate, develop, and implement the school’s
curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices in a coherent, equitable, and systematic manner.
Sixth, in contrast to ELCC, the 2018 NELP standards (see component 6.3) require building-level
leaders to “reflectively evaluate, communicate about, and implement laws, rights, policies, and
regulations to promote student and adult success” but does not expect building-level leaders to
act to influence those laws, rights, policies, and regulations.
A seventh difference between the 2018 NELP standards and the 2011 ELCC standards is the expanded
focus of standard 7, component 1. This component expects building-level leaders to “develop the
school’s professional capacity through engagement in recruiting, selecting, and hiring staff.” This
expectation greatly expands upon the 2011 ELCC element 6.2, which only expected leaders to
“understand and sustain a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning…”
Eighth, the NELP committee identified nine practices through which educational leaders achieve
the expectations outlined in the standards. These nine key practices are consistently used
throughout the NELP standards and their components. They include developing, implementing,
evaluating, collaborating, communicating, modeling, reflecting, advocating, and cultivating.
Importantly, several of these key practices (i.e., developing, implementing, evaluating) are essential
for school improvement (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Easton, & Luppescu, 2010). Definitions for
each of these key practices are provided in the glossary, which can be found in Appendix 4.
Ninth, and finally, the committee has developed a comprehensive crosswalk that compares the
new NELP building-level standards to the 2011 ELCC standards and the 2015 PSEL standards. This
cross walk is available in Appendix 7.
Assumptions
There are several key assumptions embedded in the new NELP standards. Preparation programs
are the heart of educational leaders’ pre-professional growth and professional advancement.
“Programs provide the structured opportunities (e.g., course content and field experiences) for
individuals preparing to enter various education specialties to learn, practice, and be assessed
on what they will need to know and be able to do when they enter their new professional
responsibilities” (CAEP, 2017, p. 6). The following assumptions are embedded within the NELP
building-level leadership preparation standards:
7
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
1. Improving student learning is the central responsibility of school leadership. Because a
school leader must improve the learning of all students, the standards purposefully do
not name specific sub-groups of students. Strong preparation of school leaders includes
attention to the learning and needs of all student sub-groups as well as individual students.
2. The standards represent the fundamental knowledge, skills, and practices intrinsic to
developing leadership that improves student learning and well-being.
3. The standards conceptually apply to a range of school-level leadership positions. They
are intended to define what an entry-level building-level administrator should know and
be able to do. While specific content and application details will vary depending upon the
leadership role, the fundamental, enduring tenets are the same.
4. Each standard begins with the following stem: “Candidates who successfully complete a
building-level educational leadership preparation program understand and demonstrate
the capacity to promote the current and future success and well-being of each student
and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments necessary to….” This
emphasizes three things: (1) the importance of beginning-level leaders gaining the knowledge,
skills, and commitments to both understand and have the capacity to undertake the leadership
described in each of the standards; (2) the importance of leadership work to both the current
and future experiences of the students and educational staff who leaders influence; and (3) the
importance of attending to both the education and well-being of students and adults.
5. While there is a purposeful emphasis on leading for student learning and well-being, an
understanding and acceptance of school leaders’ responsibility for managing the resources
and operations of the school are also embedded.
6. The practice of school leadership is well-established as a research-based body of
knowledge. This research base helps to inform the preparation of school leaders.
7. The preparation of school leaders requires overt connections and bridging experiences
between research and practice.
8. The preparation of school leaders requires comprehensive practice in, and feedback from,
the field over an extended period of time.
9. School leadership preparation programs must provide ongoing experiences for candidates
to examine, refine, and strengthen the leadership platform that guides their decisions—
especially during difficult times.
10. While building-level leadership preparation programs are ultimately an institutional
responsibility, the strength of the design, delivery, and effectiveness of these programs will
be significantly enhanced by P-12 participation and feedback.
11. Performance-based measures are most effective in evaluating candidate outcomes.
8
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Implementation
Supporting the current and future success and well-being of students depends on the
implementation of multiple and integrated effective leadership practices within a set of complex
and nested contexts. Given the interdependency between the execution of specific school
leadership skills and the overall educational environment, preparation programs are expected to
provide candidates with intentionally developed school leadership development experiences that
connect, embed, and transcend explicit leadership skills within authentic contexts.
Candidates need multiple bridging experiences between course content and the realm of
leadership practice. Life as a school leader requires the use of specialized skills within the context
of often ambiguous, demanding, and interconnected events. Powerful connections to, and
emphasis on, real or simulated school experiences will greatly facilitate a program graduate’s
ultimate success as a school leader.
Leadership preparation programs must include three dimensions:
1. Awareness—acquiring concepts, information, definitions, and procedures
2. Understanding—interpreting, integrating, and using knowledge and skills
3. Application—applying knowledge and skills to new or specific opportunities or problems
The overall program should represent a synthesis of key content and extended field-based
experiences that result in the school leader candidates’ demonstration of the professional
knowledge, skills, and commitments articulated in the NELP standards and, most importantly,
candidates’ success in improving student achievement after taking a leadership position.
Standard 8: The Internship includes three components that address the internship under
the supervision of knowledgeable, expert practitioners. The internship needs to engage
candidates in multiple and diverse school settings and provide candidates with coherent,
authentic, and sustained opportunities to synthesize and apply the knowledge and skills
identified in NELP standards 1–7 in ways that approximate the full range of responsibilities
required of building-level leaders and enable them to promote the current and future success
and well-being of each student and adult in the school. Evidence confirms the importance
of a substantial and sustained educational leadership internship experience that has school-
based field experiences, has clinical internship practice within a school setting, and is
monitored by a qualified on-site mentor. Many of the internship components and descriptors
of practice in standard 8 parallel the research findings regarding the critical components of
the field experience (Milstein & Kruger, 1997). This research is provided in Appendix 3.
9
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
This Document
The purpose of this document is to provide background concerning the history and
development of the NELP standards and guidance for using them for building-level leadership
preparation. The standards and their component areas, along with supporting explanations
that provide guidance regarding the scope and focus of each standard component, are
presented in the following section. This section also includes criteria or rubric starters that
clarify SPA expectations for appropriate candidate knowledge and skills. Subsequently, the
document includes several appendices. Appendix 1, “Using NELP Standards for Program
Evaluation,” identifies the assessment types to be used for measuring candidate knowledge
and skills and provides guidance for judging assessment evidence and for making program
decisions. Appendix 2, “Research Support for Standards,” provides a review of school
leadership research supporting each of the NELP standards. Appendix 3, “Alignment of NELP
Program Standards with CAEP Principles,” provides an overview of how the NELP standards
align with and reflect the four CAEP principles. Appendix 4, “Glossary of Terms,” provides a
definition of terms used within the NELP standards and throughout this document. Appendix
5, “NELP Reviewer Selection and Training,” overviews the process used to select and train
reviewers for the NELP Specialized Professional Association (SPA). Appendix 6, “NELP
Development Committees,” lists the individuals who directly contributed to the development
of the NELP standards. Appendix 7, “NELP Building–ELCC 2011–PSEL 2015 Crosswalk,”
provides a crosswalk demonstrating the similarities and differences between the NELP
building-level standards, the 2011 ELCC standards, and the 2015 PSEL standards.
10
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP PREPARATION (NELP)
PROGRAM STANDARDS
Building Level
11
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 1: Mission, Vision, and Improvement
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership preparation
program understand and demonstrate the capacity to promote the current and future success
and well-being of each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments
necessary to collaboratively lead, design, and implement a school mission, vision, and process
for continuous improvement that reflects a core set of values and priorities that include data use,
technology, equity, diversity, digital citizenship, and community.
Component 1.1 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to collaboratively
evaluate, develop, and communicate a school mission and vision designed to reflect a core set
of values and priorities that include data use, technology, equity, diversity, digital citizenship, and
community.
Component 1.2 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to lead
improvement processes that include data use, design, implementation, and evaluation.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR STANDARD 1:
Evidence presented in Appendix 3 in support of standard 1 confirms that a building-level
education leader must have the knowledge and skills to promote the success of every student
through collaboratively leading, designing, and implementing a school mission, vision, and
process for continuous improvement that reflects a core set of values and priorities. This includes
knowledge of how to evaluate, design, and communicate a district mission and vision that reflects
a core set of values and priorities and to lead improvement processes that include evaluation,
design, and implementation. This research evidence was used to inform the development of
standard 1 and components 1.1 and 1.2.
12
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Acceptable Candidate Performance for
NELP Building-Level Leadership Standard 1
NELP Standard Component 1.1
Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to collaboratively evaluate, develop,
and communicate a school mission and vision designed to reflect a core set of values and priorities that
include data use, technology, equity, diversity, digital citizenship, and community.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Researchontheroleandimportanceofschool
mission and vision
• Processesforcollaborativelydevelopinga
mission and vision
• Processesfordevelopinganactionablemission
and vision attentive to values and priorities that
include data use, technology, values, equity,
diversity, digital citizenship, and community
• Thecharacteristicsofwell-writtenmissionand
vision statements
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Evaluateexistingmissionandvisionprocesses
and statements
• Collaborativelydesignaschoolmissionand
vision attentive to values and priorities that
include data, technology, values, equity,
diversity, digital citizenship, and community
• Developacomprehensiveplanfor
communicating the mission and vision
NELP Standard Component 1.2
Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to lead improvement processes that
include data use, design, implementation, and evaluation.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Researchonschoolimprovement
• Formalprocessesofiterative,evidence-
informed improvement
• Datacollection,analysis,anduse
• Implementationtheoryandresearch
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Evaluateexistingimprovementprocesses
• Useresearchanddatatodevelopan
improvement process that includes the
following components: diagnosis, design,
implementation, and evaluation
• Developanimplementationplantosupport
the improvement process
13
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 2: Ethics and Professional Norms
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership preparation
program understand and demonstrate the capacity to promote the current and future success
and well-being of each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments
necessary to understand and demonstrate the capacity to advocate for ethical decisions and
cultivate and enact professional norms.
Component 2.1 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to reflect on,
communicate about, cultivate, and model professional dispositions and norms (i.e., fairness,
integrity, transparency, trust, digital citizenship, collaboration, perseverance, reflection, lifelong
learning) that support the educational success and well-being of each student and adult.
Component 2.2 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
communicate about, and advocate for ethical and legal decisions.
Component 2.3 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to model ethical
behavior in their personal conduct and relationships and to cultivate ethical behavior in others.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR STANDARD 2:
Evidence presented in Appendix 3 in support of standard 2 confirms that a building-level
education leader must have the knowledge and skills to promote the success of every student
through advocating for ethical decisions and cultivating and enacting professional norms. This
includes the capacity to reflect on, communicate about, cultivate, and enact professional norms
and evaluate and advocate for ethical and legal decisions. It also includes the capacity to model
ethical behavior in their personal conduct and relationships and to cultivate ethical behavior in
others. This research evidence was used to inform the development of standard 2 and components
2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.
14
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Acceptable Candidate Performance for
NELP Building-Level Leadership Standard 2
NELP Standard Component 2.1 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to reflect
on, communicate about, cultivate, and model professional dispositions and norms (i.e., fairness, integrity,
transparency, trust, digital citizenship, collaboration, perseverance, reflection, lifelong learning) that
support the educational success and well-being of each student and adult.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Professionalnorms(i.e.,integrity,competency,
fairness, transparency, trust, equity,
democracy, digital citizenship, diversity,
inclusiveness, and the belief that each child
can learn), which support student success and
well-being
• Practicesthatreectprofessionalnorms
• Approachestocultivatingprofessionalnorms
in others
• Reectivepractice
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Engageinreectivepracticeasaprofessional
norm
• Cultivateprofessionalnormsamongschoolstaff
members
• Communicateprofessionalnormstodiverse
constituencies
• Modelprofessionalnorms(i.e.,integrity,
competency, fairness, transparency, trust,
equity, democracy, digital citizenship, diversity,
inclusiveness, and the belief that each child can
learn)
NELP Standard Component 2.2 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
evaluate, communicate about, and advocate for ethical and legal decisions.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Researchondecisionmaking
• Decision-makingprocesses
• Guidelinesforethicalandlegaldecision
making
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Evaluateethicaldimensionsofissues
• Analyzedecisionsintermsofestablishedethical
frameworks
• Developacommunicationplantoadvocatefor
ethical decisions
NELP Standard Component 2.3 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to model
ethical behavior in their personal conduct and relationships and to cultivate ethical behavior in others.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Ethicalpractice
• Approachestocultivatingethicalbehaviorin
others
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Formulateaschool-levelethicalleadership
platform
• Modelethicalpractice
• Cultivateethicalbehaviorinothers
15
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 3: Equity, Inclusiveness, and Cultural Responsiveness
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership preparation
program understand and demonstrate the capacity to promote the current and future success
and well-being of each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments
necessary to develop and maintain a supportive, equitable, culturally responsive, and inclusive
school culture.
Component 3.1 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to use data to
evaluate, design, cultivate, and advocate for a supportive and inclusive school culture.
Component 3.2 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
cultivate, and advocate for equitable access to educational resources, technologies, and
opportunities that support the educational success and well-being of each student.
Component 3.3 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
cultivate, and advocate for equitable, inclusive, and culturally responsive instruction and behavior
support practices among teachers and staff.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR STANDARD 3:
Evidence presented in Appendix 3 in support of standard 3 confirms that a building-level
education leader must have the knowledge and skills to promote the success of every student
through developing and maintaining a supportive, equitable, responsive, and inclusive school
culture. This includes the capacity to evaluate, cultivate, and advocate for a supportive and
inclusive school culture; equitable access to educational resources, procedures, and opportunities;
and equitable instructional and behavior support practices among teachers and staff. This research
evidence was used to inform the development of standard 3 and components 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.
16
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Acceptable Candidate Performance for
NELP Building-Level Leadership Standard 3
NELP Standard Component 3.1 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to use
data to evaluate, design, cultivate, and advocate for a supportive and inclusive school culture.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Dimensionsofpositiveschoolculture(i.e.,
safe, healthy, caring, responsive, inclusive, and
respectful)
• Researchoninclusiveschoolcultures
• Processesforevaluatingschoolculture
• Processesforeffectingchangestoschool
culture
• Engaginginadvocacy
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Evaluateschoolculture
• Useresearchanddatatodesignandcultivate
a supportive, nurturing, and inclusive school
culture
• Developstrategiesforimprovingschoolculture
• Advocateforasupportiveandinclusiveschool
culture
NELP Standard Component 3.2 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
evaluate, cultivate, and advocate for equitable access to educational resources, technologies, and
opportunities that support the educational success and well-being of each student.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Researchontheconsequencesforstudentsof
equitable and inequitable use of educational
resources and opportunities
• Equitableallocationofeducationalresources,
procedures, and opportunities (i.e., materials,
technologies, media, teachers, social and
behavioral supports, interventions, and adult
relationships)
• Broadersocialandpoliticalconcernswith
equity and inequality in the use of educational
resources, procedures, and opportunities
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Evaluatesourcesofinequalityandbiasin
the allocation of educational resources and
opportunities
• Cultivatetheequitableuseofeducational
resources and opportunities through
procedures, guidelines, norms, and values
• Advocatefortheequitableaccessto
educational resources, procedures, and
opportunities
NELP Standard Component 3.3 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
evaluate, advocate, and cultivate equitable, inclusive, and culturally responsive instruction and behavioral
support practices among teachers and staff.
17
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Culturallyresponsiveinstructionalandbehavior
support practices
• Characteristicsandfoundationsofequitable
and inequitable educational practice, especially
among teachers and staff
• Researchonimplicationsforstudentsof
equitable, culturally responsive, and inclusive
practices
• Broadersocialandpoliticalconcernwithequity
and inequality in schools
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Evaluaterootcausesofinequityandbias
• Developschoolpoliciesorproceduresthat
cultivate equitable, inclusive, and culturally
responsive practice among teachers and staff
• Supporttheuseofdifferentiated,content-
based instructional materials and strategies
• Advocateforequitablepracticeamong
teachers and staff
18
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 4: Learning and Instruction
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership preparation
program understand and demonstrate the capacity to promote the current and future success
and well-being of each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments
necessary to evaluate, develop, and implement coherent systems of curriculum, instruction, data
systems, supports, and assessment.
Component 4.1 Program completers understand and can demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement high-quality, technology-rich curricula programs and other supports for
academic and non-academic student programs.
Component 4.2 Program completers understand and can demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement high-quality and equitable academic and non-academic instructional
practices, resources, technologies, and services that support equity, digital literacy, and the
school’s academic and non-academic systems.
Component 4.3 Program completers understand and can demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement formal and informal culturally responsive and accessible assessments that
support data-informed instructional improvement and student learning and well-being.
Component 4.4 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to collaboratively
evaluate, develop, and implement the school’s curriculum, instruction, technology, data systems,
and assessment practices in a coherent, equitable, and systematic manner.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR STANDARD 4:
Evidence presented in Appendix 3 in support of standard 4 confirms that a building-level
education leader must have the knowledge and skills to promote the success of every student
through evaluating, developing, and implementing coherent systems of curriculum, instruction,
supports, and assessment. This includes the capacity to evaluate, develop, and implement
academic and non-academic student programs and academic and non-academic instructional
practices, resources, and services that support the needs of each student. It also includes the
capacity to evaluate, develop, and implement formal and informal assessments that support
instructional improvement and student learning and well-being and to evaluate, develop, and
implement the school’s curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices in a coherent and
systematic manner. This research evidence was used to inform the development of standard 4 and
components 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4.
19
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Acceptable Candidate Performance for
NELP Building-Level Leadership Standard 4
NELP Standard Component 4.1 Program completers understand and can demonstrate the capacity
to evaluate, develop, and implement high-quality, technologically rich curricula, programs, and other
supports for academic and non-academic student programs.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Researchontheleadershipofacademicand
non-academic programs
• Approachestocoordinatingamong(a)
curricula, instructional technologies, and other
supports and (b) academic and non-academic
systems
• Evidence-basedcurricula,useoftechnology,
and other supports for academic and non-
academic programs
• Infrastructuresfortheongoingsupportof
academic and non-academic programs
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Evaluate(a)curricula,useoftechnology,and
other supports and (b) academic and non-
academic systems
• Proposedesignsandimplementationstrategies
for high-quality, technology-rich, and coherent
curricula and supports for academic and non-
academic programs
NELP Standard Component 4.2 Program completers understand and can demonstrate the capacity to
evaluate, develop, and implement high-quality and equitable academic and non-academic instructional
practices, resources, technologies, and services that support equity, digital literacy, and the school’s
academic and non-academic systems.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Evidence-basedinstructionalpracticesfor
different student populations
• Curricula,educationaltechnologies,andother
educational resources that support digital
literacy among students and adults
• Educationalserviceproviders
• Approachestocoordinatingresourcesand
services in support of the school’s academic
and non-academic services
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Evaluatecoordinationandcoherenceamong
the practices, resources, and services that
support equity, digital literacy, and the school’s
academic and non-academic systems
• Proposedesignsandimplementationstrategies
for improving the impact of academic and non-
academic practices, resources, and services
that support student learning
NELP Standard Component 4.3 Program completers understand and can demonstrate the capacity
to evaluate and implement formal and informal culturally responsive and accessible assessments that
support data-informed instructional improvement and student learning and well-being.
20
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Researchontheeffectiveandineffective
assessment of student learning and well-being
• Researchonassessmentpracticesthatare
culturally responsive and accessible for each
student
• Formativeandsummativemeasuresofstudent
learning and well-being
• Approachestocoordinatingamong
assessments, instructional improvement, and
educational service delivery
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Useresearchtoevaluatethequalityof
formative and summative assessments of
learning
• implementformalandinformalculturally
responsive and accessible assessments of
student learning
• Interpretdatafromformativeandsummative
assessments for use in educational planning
• Cultivateteachers’capacitytoimprove
instruction based on analysis of assessment
data
NELP Standard Component 4.4 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
collaboratively evaluate, develop, and implement the school’s curriculum, instruction, technology, data
systems, and assessment practices in a coherent, equitable, and systematic manner.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Appropriateandethicaluseofdatato
monitor and continuously improve the school’s
curriculum, instruction technology, and
assessment practices
• Researchonthecoordination(orlackthereof)
within and among academic and non-academic
services and its impact on student learning and
well-being
• Approachesandstrategiesforbuildinga
coherent and equitable system of academic
(curriculum, instruction, and assessment) and
non-academic services
• Approachesandstrategiesforsupporting
faculty collaboration
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Engagefacultyingathering,synthesizing,and
using data to evaluate the quality, coordination,
and coherence of the school’s curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices
• Useresearchandevidencetoproposedesigns
and implementation strategies for improving
coordination and coherence among the
school’s curriculum, instruction, and assessment
practices
• Usetechnologyandperformancemanagement
systems to monitor, analyze, implement, and
evaluate school curriculum, instruction, and
assessment practices and results
21
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 5: Community and External Leadership
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership preparation
program understand and demonstrate the capacity to promote the current and future success
and well-being of each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments
necessary to engage families, community, and school personnel in order to strengthen student
learning, support school improvement, and advocate for the needs of their school and community.
Component 5.1 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to collaboratively
engage diverse families in strengthening student learning in and out of school.
Component 5.2 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to collaboratively
engage and cultivate relationships with diverse community members, partners, and other
constituencies for the benefit of school improvement and student development.
Component 5.3 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to communicate
through oral, written, and digital means within the larger organizational, community, and political
contexts when advocating for the needs of their school and community.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR STANDARD 5:
Evidence presented in Appendix 3 in support of standard 5 confirms that a building-level
education leader must have the knowledge and skills to promote the success of every student
through engaging families, community, and school personnel in order to strengthen student
learning, support school improvement, and advocate for the needs of their school and community.
This includes the capacity to engage families in strengthening student learning in and out of
school; to engage community members, partners, and other constituencies for the benefit of
school improvement and student development; and to engage the larger organizational and policy
context to advocate for the needs of their school and community. This research evidence was used
to inform the development of standard 5 and components 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.
22
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Acceptable Candidate Performance for
NELP Building-Level Leadership Standard 5
NELP Standard Component 5.1 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
collaboratively engage diverse families in strengthening student learning in and out of school.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Researchontheroleoffamiliesinsupporting
student learning in and out school
• Researchonstudentandfamilydiversity
• Strategiesforunderstandingandcultivating
relationships with families and engaging them
in their children’s education
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Gatherinformationaboutfamilydemographics
and funds of knowledge available within
students’ families that can be accessed to
enhance student learning
• Cultivatecollaborationamongstaffandfamilies
in support of student learning and success
• Fostertwo-waycommunicationwithfamilies
NELP Standard Component 5.2 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
collaboratively engage and cultivate relationships with diverse community members, partners, and other
constituencies for the benefit of school improvement and student development.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Schoolorganizationalculturesthatpromote
community engagement
• Researchonhowcommunitymembers,
partners, and other constituencies can support
school improvement and student success
• Collaborationmethodstodevelopand
sustain productive relationships with diverse
community partners
• Practicesforaccessingandintegratingexternal
resources into the school
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Collaborativelyengagewithdiversecommunity
members, partners, and other constituencies
around shared goals
• Cultivateregular,two-waycommunication
with community members, partners, and other
constituencies
• Identifyandusediversecommunityresources
to benefit school programs and student
learning
NELP Standard Component 5.3 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
communicate through oral, written, and digital means with the larger organizational, community, and
political context when advocating for the needs of their school and community.
23
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Researchontheimportanceandimplications
of social, cultural, economic, legal, and political
contexts
• Strategiesforeffectiveoral,written,and
digital communication with members of
the organization, community, and policy
communities
• Educationalpolicyandadvocacy
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Developaplanforidentifyingandaccessing
resources
• Gatherinformationaboutthepolicyanddistrict
context
• Developtargetedcommunicationfororal,
written, and digital distribution
• Advocateforschoolandcommunityneeds
24
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 6: Operations and Management
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership preparation
program understand and demonstrate the capacity to promote the current and future success
and well-being of each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments
necessary to improve management, communication, technology, school-level governance, and
operation systems to develop and improve data-informed and equitable school resource plans and
to apply laws, policies, and regulations.
Component 6.1 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement management, communication, technology, school-level governance, and
operation systems that support each student’s learning needs and promote the mission and vision
of the school.
Component 6.2 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and advocate for a data-informed and equitable resourcing plan that supports school
improvement and student development.
Component 6.3 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to reflectively
evaluate, communicate about, and implement laws, rights, policies, and regulations to promote
student and adult success and well-being.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR STANDARD 6:
Evidence presented in Appendix 3 in support of standard 6 confirms that a building-level
education leader must have the knowledge and skills to promote the success of every student
through improving management, communication, technology, school-level governance, and
operation systems; developing and improving school resource plans; and applying laws, policies,
and regulations. This includes the capacity to improve management, communication, technology,
school-level governance, and operation systems that support each student’s learning needs and
promote the mission and vision of the school; to develop and improve a resourcing plan for the
benefit of school improvement and student development; and to apply laws, rights, policies, and
regulations to promote student and adult success. This research evidence was used to inform the
development of standard 6 and components 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
25
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Acceptable Candidate Performance for
NELP Building-Level Leadership Standard 6
NELP Standard Component 6.1 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
evaluate, develop, and implement management, communication, technology, school-level governance,
and operation systems that support each student’s learning needs and promote the mission and vision of
the school.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Researchonschoolmanagement,operations,
use of technologies, communication, and
governance systems
• Principlesofsystemsmanagementand
continuous improvement
• Managementtheoriesontheeffectiveuseof
school resources and structures (i.e., school
time and schedules) to achieve equitable
outcomes for diverse student populations
• Processesfordevelopingandimplementing
management, communication, technology,
school-level governance, and operation
systems
• Useoftechnologytoenhancelearningand
program management
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Useaprocessforauditingtheequityofschool
processes and operations and their impact on
resource allocation, personnel decisions, and
students’ experiences and outcomes
• Useresearchandevidencetoanalyzeand
identify strategic and tactical challenges for the
school’s systems
• Developandimplementmanagement,
communication, assessment, technology,
school-level governance, and operation
systems
• Developaschool’smasterschedule
NELP Standard Component 6.2 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
evaluate, develop, and advocate for a data-informed and equitable resourcing plan that supports school
improvement and student development.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• School-basedbudgeting
• Strategiesforacquiringresources
• Processesforgathering,synthesizing,and
evaluating data (i.e., data literacy) to develop
and implement management, communication,
school-level governance, and operation
systems
• Strategiesforaligningandallocatingresources
according to school priorities and student
needs
• Methodsandproceduresformanagingschool
resources
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Evaluateresourceneeds
• Usedataethicallyandequitablytodevelopa
multi-year school resourcing plan aligned to the
school’s goals and priorities
• Advocateforresourcesinsupportofneeds
26
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
NELP Standard Component 6.3 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
reflectively evaluate, communicate about, and implement laws, rights, policies, and regulations to
promote student and adult success and well-being.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Laws,rights,policies,andregulationsenacted
by state, local, and federal authorities that
affect schools, students, and adults
• Implicationsoflaws,rights,policies,and
regulations for diverse student populations,
subgroups, and communities
• Researchonemergingchallengessuchas
privacy, social media (i.e., cyber-bullying), and
safety
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Reectivelyevaluatesituationsandpolicies
with regard to legal, ethical, and equity issues
• Analyzehowlawandpolicyareapplied
consistently, fairly, equitably, and ethically
within a school
• Communicatepolicies,laws,regulations,and
procedures to appropriate school stakeholders
• Monitorandensureadherencetolaws,rights,
policies, and regulations
27
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 7: Building Professional Capacity
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership preparation
program understand and demonstrate the capacity to promote the current and future success
and well-being of each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments
necessary to build the school’s professional capacity, engage staff in the development of a
collaborative professional culture, and improve systems of staff supervision, evaluation, support,
and professional learning.
Component 7.1 Program completers understand and have the capacity to collaboratively develop
the school’s professional capacity through engagement in recruiting, selecting, and hiring staff.
Component 7.2 Program completers understand and have the capacity to develop and engage
staff in a collaborative professional culture designed to promote school improvement, teacher
retention, and the success and well-being of each student and adult in the school.
Component 7.3 Program completers understand and have the capacity to personally engage in, as
well as collaboratively engage school staff in, professional learning designed to promote reflection,
cultural responsiveness, distributed leadership, digital literacy, school improvement, and student
success.
Component 7.4 Program completers understand and have the capacity to evaluate, develop,
and implement systems of supervision, support, and evaluation designed to promote school
improvement and student success.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR STANDARD 7:
Evidence presented in Appendix 3 in support of standard 7 confirms that a building-level
education leader must have the knowledge and skills to promote the success of every student
through engaging staff in the development of a collaborative professional culture, building the
school’s professional capacity, and improving systems of staff supervision, evaluation, support,
and professional learning. This includes building professional capacity through engagement in
recruitment, selection, and hiring. It also includes the capacity to improve and engage staff in a
collaborative professional culture, engage staff in professional learning, and improve systems of
supervision, support, and evaluation that promote school improvement and student success. This
research evidence was used to inform the development of standard 7 and components 7.1, 7.2,
7.3, a nd 7. 4.
28
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Acceptable Candidate Performance for
NELP Building-Level Leadership Standard 7
NELP Standard Component 7.1 Program completers understand and have the capacity to collaboratively
develop the school’s professional capacity through engagement in recruiting, selecting, and hiring staff.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Researchonteacherrecruitment,hiring,and
selection
• Practicesforrecruiting,selecting,andhiring
school staff
• Strategicstafngbasedonstudent,school,and
staff needs
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Evaluateschool’sprofessionalstaffcapacity
needs
• Evaluateapplicantmaterials
• Useresearchanddatatoplanandengage
in candidate recruitment and selection that
reflects the diversity of the student body
NELP Standard Component 7.2 Program completers understand and have the capacity to develop and
engage staff in a collaborative professional culture designed to promote school improvement, teacher
retention, and the success and well-being of each student and adult in the school.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Researchonandstrategiesfordevelopinga
collaborative professional culture designed to
support improvement, retention, learning, and
well-being
• Effectivecommunication
• Theroleofrelationships,trust,andwell-being
in the development of a healthy and effective
professional culture
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Useresearchtodesignandcultivatea
collaborative professional culture
• Modelandfostereffectivecommunication
• Developacomprehensiveplanforproviding
school community members with a healthy and
positive school building environment
NELP Standard Component 7.3 Program completers understand and have the capacity to personally
engage in, as well as engage school staff in, professional learning designed to promote reflection, cultural
responsiveness, distributed leadership, digital literacy, school improvement, and student success.
29
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Researchonteacherprofessionallearning
• Practicesforsupportinganddevelopingschool
staff
• Practicesforcultivatinganddistributing
leadership among staff
• Providingprofessionallearningthatpromotes
reflection, cultural responsiveness, digital
literacy, school improvement, and student
success
• Howtousedigitaltechnologyinethicaland
appropriate ways to foster professional learning
for self and others
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Evaluateprofessionalstaffcapacityneedsand
management practices
• Identifyleadershipcapabilitiesofstaff
• Planopportunitiesforprofessionalgrowththat
promotes reflection, cultural responsiveness,
digital literacy, school improvement, and
student success
• Engagestaffinleadershiproles
• Utilizedigitaltechnologyinethicaland
appropriate ways to foster professional learning
for self and others
NELP Standard Component 7.4 Program completers understand and have the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement systems of supervision, support, and evaluation designed to promote school
improvement and student success.
Content Knowledge
Program provides evidence of candidate
knowledge of:
• Research-basedstrategiesforpersonnel
supervision and evaluation
• Importanceof,andtheabilitytoaccess,
specific personnel evaluation procedures for a
given context
• Multipleapproachesforprovidingactionable
feedback and support systems for teachers
Educational Leadership Skills
Program provides evidence that candidates
demonstrate skills required to:
• Observeteachinginavarietyofclassrooms
• Gatherandanalyzedistrictpolicieson
instructional expectations
• Provideteachingstaffwithactionablefeedback
to support improvement
• Developasystemformonitoringwhether
supervision and evaluation strategies promote
improvement
30
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 8: Internship
Candidates successfully complete an internship under the supervision of knowledgeable, expert
practitioners that engages candidates in multiple and diverse school settings and provides
candidates with coherent, authentic, and sustained opportunities to synthesize and apply the
knowledge and skills identified in NELP standards 1–7 in ways that approximate the full range of
responsibilities required of building-level leaders and enable them to promote the current and
future success and well-being of each student and adult in their school.
Component 8.1
Candidates are provided a variety of coherent, authentic field and/or clinical internship experiences
within multiple school environments that afford opportunities to interact with stakeholders,
synthesize and apply the content knowledge, and develop and refine the professional skills
articulated in each of the components included in NELP building-level program standards 1–7.
Component 8.2
Candidates are provided a minimum of six months of concentrated (10–15 hours per week)
internship or clinical experiences that include authentic leadership activities within a school setting.
Component 8.3
Candidates are provided a mentor who has demonstrated effectiveness as an educational
leader within a building setting; is present for a significant portion of the internship; is selected
collaboratively by the intern, a representative of the school and/or district, and program faculty;
and has received training from the supervising institution.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR STANDARD 8:
Evidence presented in Appendix 3 in support of standard 8 confirms that effective internships
include the use of expert practitioners as supervisors who engage candidates in multiple and
diverse school settings and provide coherent, authentic, and sustained opportunities to synthesize
and apply the knowledge and skills identified in NELP standards 1–7 in ways that approximate the
full range of responsibilities required of building-level leaders and enable them to promote the
current and future success and well-being of each student and adult in their school. This research
evidence was used to inform the development of standard 8 and components 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3.
31
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Appendix 1: Using NELP Standards for Program Evaluation
Under CAEP policy, six assessments are required for option A program reports. These six
assessments must collectively measure NELP standards 1–7 and the 22 associated components.
Assessments 1 and 2 must measure content knowledge, and assessments 3, 4, 5, and 6 must
measure educational leadership skills. To demonstrate the effective measurement of all standard
components in the program’s assessment system, preparation programs are required to develop a
matrix that maps the specific leadership content knowledge and skills standard components to the
specific assessments. Programs may, at their discretion, submit a seventh or eighth assessment if they
believe it is necessary to strengthen their case that the NELP standard components are met. These
additional assessments will be evaluated and carry the same weight in the reviewer decision process.
The required NELP assessments focus on educational leadership content knowledge and
educational leadership skills, as indicated in the following table.
Educational Leadership Content Knowledge
Assessments Include:
Educational Leadership Skill Assessments
Include:
NELP Assessment 1: A state licensure assessment
or other assessment of candidate content
knowledge that aligns to the NELP building-level
standards.
NELP Assessment 3: Demonstration of candidate’s
instructional leadership skills.
NELP Assessment 2: An assessment of candidate
content knowledge that aligns to the NELP
building-level standards.
NELP Assessment 4: Demonstration of candidate’s
leadership and management skills within a field-
based setting.
NELP Assessment 5: Demonstration of candidate’s
leadership skills in supporting an effective P-12
student learning environment.
NELP Assessment 6: Demonstration of candidate’s
leadership skills in the areas of family and
community relations.
Please note that while NELP standard 8 is not measured in the six assessments, programs must
provide evidence of this standard and its components in a one-page narrative document that
describes the internship/clinical field experience.
NELP reviewers will use the NELP standard evaluation rubrics to make qualitative judgments about
whether a standard is “met,” “met with conditions,” or “not met.” Through application of this
rubric, the NELP SPA seeks to establish a viable and reliable evaluation system across education
leadership program reviews while simultaneously creating standards that are flexible and sensitive
to a program’s localized contexts.
With regard to NELP assessment 1 (state licensure examinations), the NELP SPA does not require
programs to meet a specific pass rate for its completers at the cohort level as a pre-condition for
32
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
SPA National Recognition. However, as part of the program review reporting process, all programs
are required to document candidates’ performance on state licensure examinations as partial
evidence for candidates’ content knowledge. Programs are also expected to delineate how the
licensure assessment is aligned with the NELP SPA standards and components. According to
CAEP policy, “alignment” may be attained if assessments that are comprised of content similar to
the specialty standards demonstrate the same complexity as the standards; are congruent in the
range of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that candidates are expected to exhibit; and call for an
appropriate level of difficulty consistent with the standards.
Program reports provided by institutions in any state that uses licensure tests should include the
following data: (1) the average scores of completing candidates in the program and 2) the range of
scores for candidates completing the program.
33
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
NELP Standards 1–7: NELP Reviewer Evaluation Rubric
NELP SPA program reviewers and audit team members decide whether a program provides
sufficient evidence to meet NELP standards and criteria for National Recognition. The following
rubric should be used by NELP building-level program reviewers in making judgments about
the quality of assessment evidence presented in the program report for NELP standards
1–7. SPA program reviewer decisions on whether standards are met will be based on the
preponderance of evidence at the standard level. CAEP (2017) defines preponderance
of evidence as “an overall confirmation that candidates meet standards in the strength,
weight, or quality of evidence,” rather than satisfactory performance for each component. A
commonly accepted definition of preponderance of evidence is a requirement that a majority
of the evidence favors a given outcome. NELP program review decisions are based on the
preponderance of evidence at the standard level using this definition. Specifically, 75 percent
of the components of each standard must be met at the acceptable or target level.
Programs will be required to provide evidence for all of the components of NELP standards
1–7. However, programs are not required to meet all components of the standards as a
criterion for National Recognition. Programs and reviewers use the components to help
determine how standards are met. This means that a standard could be met even though
evidence related to one or more components presented in the assessments is weak. Program
reviewers will weigh the evidence presented in the program reports, and when there is a
greater weight of evidence in favor, they will conclude that a standard is met or that a program
is recognized.
Met Met with Conditions Not Met
Assessment Purpose
• Thepurposeofeach
assessment for candidate
monitoring or decision
making concerning candidate
progression is clear and
aligned to specified standard
components.
• Thepurposeofeach
assessment for candidate
monitoring or decision
making concerning candidate
progression, while present, is
unclear and/or inconsistently
aligned to specified standard
components.
• Thepurposeofeach
assessment for candidate
monitoring or decision
making concerning
candidate progression is
not provided and/or not
aligned to specified standard
components.
34
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Met Met with Conditions Not Met
Assessment Instructions
• Candidatesareprovidedclear,
complete instructions about
what they are expected to do
and how their performance
will be evaluated (scoring
rubric), and the instructions
are aligned to the specified
standard components.
• Candidatesareprovided
with partial instructions about
what they are expected to do
and how their performance
will be evaluated (scoring
rubric), and/or instructions
are inconsistently aligned
to the specified standard
components.
• Candidatesareprovidedwith
instructions that are unclear,
incomplete, or missing, and
instructions have no alignment
to the current standard
components.
Assessment Alignment to Standards
• Collectively,thesixrequired
assessments are aligned to
the seven standards inclusive
of a preponderance of the
22 standard components
(preponderance of evidence is
defined as 75 percent of the
components of each standard
are met).
• Collectively,thesixrequired
assessments have inconsistent
alignment to the seven
standards inclusive of the
preponderance of the
22 standard components
(preponderance of evidence is
defined as 75 percent of the
components of each standard
are met).
• Collectively,thesix
required assessments
have misalignment or no
alignment to the seven
standards inclusive of the
preponderance of the
22 standard components
(preponderance of evidence is
defined as 75 percent of the
components of each standard
are met).
Knowledge and Skills Assessed
• Assessmentsclearlydene
the content knowledge
and professional skills to
be evaluated (content
knowledge for assessments 1
and 2; professional skills for
assessments 3–6).
• Assessmentsambiguously
define or inconsistently align
to the content knowledge
and professional skills to
be evaluated (content
knowledge for assessments 1
and 2; professional skills for
assessments 3–6).
• Assessmentsdonotalign
to the required content
knowledge and professional
skills to be evaluated (content
knowledge for assessments 1
and 2; professional skills for
assessments 3–6).
Higher-Level Skills
• Assessmentsrequirehigher
levels of intellectual behavior
specified in standard
components (e.g., develop,
evaluate, analyze, and apply).
• Assessmentsinconsistently
require higher levels of
intellectual behavior (e.g.,
develop, evaluate, analyze,
and apply).
• Assessmentsdonotrequire
higher levels of intellectual
behavior (e.g., develop,
evaluate, analyze, and apply).
35
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Met Met with Conditions Not Met
Evidence of Mastery
• Thedepthandbreadthofthe
assessment tasks as outlined
in the assessment descriptions
elicit requisite evidence of
candidates’ level of mastery of
essential content knowledge
and professional skills
(preponderance of evidence is
defined as 75 percent of the
components of each standard
are met).
• Thelimiteddepthandbreadth
of the assessment tasks as
outlined in the assessment
descriptions elicit partial
evidence of candidate
mastery of essential content
knowledge and professional
skills (preponderance of
evidence is defined as 75
percent of the components of
each standard are met).
• Thesupercialand/or
narrow assessment tasks as
outlined in the assessment
description(s) elicit minimal
to no evidence of candidate
mastery of essential content
knowledge and professional
skills (preponderance of
evidence is defined as 75
percent of the components of
each standard are met).
Scoring Rubric Alignment
• Thescoringrubricaligns
to the specified standard
components as identified in
the assessment description
and directions.
• Thescoringrubricalignment
to the specified standard
components as identified in
the assessment description
and directions is vague and/or
incomplete.
• Thescoringrubricisnot
provided or is not aligned
to the specified standard
components as identified in
the assessment description
and directions.
Scoring Rubric Focus
• Withinthebodyofthe
scoring rubric, each standard
component and related
indicators must be measured
separately.
• Withinthebodyofthe
scoring rubric, some standard
components and indicators
are sometimes measured
together, making it impossible
to accurately measure
candidate performance at the
individual component level.
• Thescoringrubricdoesnot
measure at the standard
component level.
Judgment of Candidate Performance
• Thebasisforjudging
candidate performance (i.e.,
the criteria for success) is
clearly defined and aligned
to standard component
indicators (content knowledge
for assessments 1 and
2; professional skills for
assessments 3–6).
• Thebasisforjudging
candidate performance (i.e.,
the criteria for success) is
partially defined and makes
limited use of standard
component indicators (content
knowledge for assessments 1
and 2; professional skills for
assessments 3–6).
• Thebasisforjudging
candidate performance (i.e.,
the criteria for success) is
unclear in definition and/
or unrelated to standard
component indicators (content
knowledge for assessments 1
and 2; professional skills for
assessments 3–6).
36
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Met Met with Conditions Not Met
Levels of Candidate Performance
• Prociencyleveldescriptions
clearly distinguish differences
among levels of performance
using identifiers of what a
candidate should demonstrate
and what a reviewer would
expect to see at each
performance level.
• Prociencyleveldescriptions
provide subjective and/or
vague qualifiers to distinguish
differences among levels of
performance, thus limiting
understanding of what a
candidate should demonstrate
and what a reviewer would
expect to see at each
performance level.
• Thescoringrubricdoesnot
measure at the standard
component level.
Data Chart Alignment
• Datachartsarealignedwith
standards as defined by the
assessment directions and
scoring rubrics.
• Datachartsareinconsistently
aligned with standards as
defined by the assessment
directions and/or scoring
rubrics.
• Datachartslackalignment
with standards as defined by
the assessment directions and
rubrics.
Initial Program Report Data Chart Requirements
• Initialprogramreportprovides
three applications of data for
each assessment.
• Initialprogramreportprovides
fewer than three applications
of data for one or two of the
assessments but includes a
valid justification for why the
data is missing.
• Initialprogramreportdoes
not provide three applications
of data for all assessments
and does not include a valid
justification for why the data is
missing.
Sufficiency of Data Representation
• Datachartspresentdata
by semester/term/year
and number of candidates
and aggregate data at the
standard level.
• Datachartsdotwoofthe
following: report data
by semester/term/year,
number of candidates, and/
or aggregate data at the
standard level.
• Datachartsdonotreportdata
by semester/term/year and
number of candidates and
do not aggregate data at the
standard level.
37
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
NELP Standard 8: NELP Reviewer Evaluation Rubric
The following rubric should be used by program reviewers in making qualitative judgments about
the quality of NELP standard 8. This standard outlines the components of high-quality internship/
clinical field experiences that are the signature for programs preparing entry-level candidates
for school building leadership positions. Programs will be required to provide evidence for all of
the components of standard 8. However, programs are not required to meet all components of
the standards as a criterion for National Recognition. This means that a standard could be met,
even though evidence related to one or more components presented in the assessments is weak.
Program reviewers will weigh the evidence presented in the program reports, and when there is
a greater weight of evidence in favor, they will conclude that a standard is met or that a program
is recognized.
Program reports should provide evidence of the components in standard 8 in a one-page narrative
document that describes the internship/clinical field experiences. Program reviewers should use
the following rubric to evaluate the degree of alignment of the program report evidence.
Met Met with Conditions Not Met
Description of Internship/Clinical Field Experience
• Theinternship/clinicaleld
experience is described in a
comprehensive manner.
• Theinternship/clinicaleld
experience description is
incomplete.
• Theinternship/clinicaleld
experience description is not
provided.
38
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
NELP 8.1: Candidates are provided a variety of coherent, authentic, field, and/or clinical internship
experiences within multiple school environments that afford opportunities to interact with stakeholders,
synthesize and apply the content knowledge, and develop and refine the professional skills articulated in
each of the components included inNELP building-level program standards 1–7.
Met Met with Conditions Not Met
Range of Experiences
• Theinternship/clinicaleld
experiences provide a range
of diverse opportunities
for candidates to engage
in authentic school-based
leadership work that
requires them to synthesize
and apply knowledge and
skills gained through the
program.
• Theinternship/clinical
field experiences provide
limited opportunities for
candidates to engage in
authentic school-based
leadership work that
requires them to synthesize
and apply knowledge and
skills gained through the
program.
• Theinternship/clinical
field experiences provide
no opportunities for
candidates to engage in
authentic school-based
leadership work that
requires them to synthesize
and apply knowledge and
skills gained through the
program.
Interactions with Stakeholders
• Theinternship/clinicaleld
experiences provide many
opportunities for candidates
to initiate and lead direct
interactions with school
staff, students, families, and
school community leaders
and organizations.
• Theinternship/clinical
field experiences involve
candidates in a few direct
interactions with school
staff, students, families, and
school community leaders
and organizations.
• Theinternship/clinical
field experiences do not
involve candidates in direct
interactions with school
staff, students, families, and
school community leaders
and organizations.
School Environments
• Candidatesareprovided
with opportunities to gain
experiences in two or more
school environments (e.g.,
elementary, middle, high,
urban, suburban, rural,
virtual, and alternative
schools) to practice a wide
range of relevant, school-
based knowledge and
leadership skills.
• Candidatesareprovided
with an opportunity to gain
experience in one type
of school setting (e.g.,
elementary, middle, high,
urban, suburban, rural,
virtual, and alternative
schools) to practice relevant,
school-based knowledge
and leadership skills.
• Candidatesarenotprovided
with an opportunity to gain
experience in any school
settings (e.g., elementary,
middle, high, urban,
suburban, rural, virtual,
and alternative schools) to
practice relevant, school-
based knowledge and
leadership skills.
39
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Met Met with Conditions Not Met
Alignment to Standard Component Areas
• Descriptiondemonstrates
alignment across all standard
component areas.
• Descriptionprovideslimited
evidence of alignment across
all standard component
areas.
• Descriptionprovides
insufficient or no evidence
of alignment across standard
component areas.
NELP 8.2: Candidates are provided a minimum of six months of concentrated (10–15 hours per week)
internship or clinical experiences that include authentic leadership activities within a school setting.
Met Met with Conditions Not Met
Concentration of Experience
• Programprovidesstrong
evidence that candidates
participate in concentrated
school internship/clinical
field experiences over an
extended period of time.
The internship/clinical
experiences cumulatively
result in 6 months, 10–15
hours per week.
(Explanatory Note: The
internship experience
may be continuous, or it
may include multiple field
experiences of different
lengths. For example,
experiences may include
two noncontiguous clinical
internships that together
provide the equivalent of
six months of clinical field
experiences.)
• Programprovidesevidence
that candidates participate
in limited school internship
with field experiences over
an extended period of
time. The internship/clinical
experiences cumulatively
result in less than 6 months
or less than 10 hours per
week.
(Explanatory Note: The
internship experience
may be continuous, or it
may include multiple field
experiences of different
lengths. For example,
experiences may include
two noncontiguous clinical
internships that together
provide the equivalent of
six months of clinical field
experiences.)
• Programfailstoprovide
evidence that candidates
participate in a sustained
school internship with
field experiences over an
extended period of time
or provides evidence
that candidates do not
participate in a sustained
school internship with
field experiences over an
extended period of time.
NELP 8.3: Candidates are provided a mentor who has demonstrated effectiveness as an educational
leader within a building setting; is present for a significant portion of the internship; is selected
collaboratively by the intern, a representative of the school and/or district, and program faculty; and has
received training from the supervising institution.
40
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Met Met with Conditions Not Met
Mentor Qualifications
• Programdescriptionincludes
comprehensive strategies
for ensuring on-site mentors
are qualified to serve as
school-based educational
leadership mentors.
• Programdescription
provides a vague explanation
and limited information
concerning how the program
will ensure that on-site
mentors are qualified to
serve as school-based
educational leadership
mentors.
• Programdescriptionfails
to provide any explanation
of qualifications for on-site
mentors, or the evidence
does not support how on-
site mentors are qualified
to serve as school-based
educational leadership
mentors.
Mentor Presence
• Programdescriptionincludes
comprehensive strategies for
ensuring that on-site mentors
are present for a significant
portion of the internship.
• Programdescription
provides a vague explanation
of how the program ensures
that on-site mentors are
present for a significant
portion of the internship.
• Programdescriptionfailsto
provide any explanation of
how the program ensures
that on-site mentors are
present for a significant
portion of the internship.
Mentor Selection
• Programdescriptionincludes
comprehensive strategies
for how the on-site mentor
is selected collaboratively by
the intern, a representative
of the school and/or district,
and a representative of the
program faculty.
• Programdescription
provides limited information
regarding the selection of
on-site mentors.
• Programdescriptionfailsto
provide any explanation of
how the on-site mentor is
selected collaboratively by
the intern, a representative
of the program faculty, and a
representative of the school
and/or district.
Met Met with Conditions Not Met
Mentor Training
• Programdescriptionincludes
comprehensive strategies
for how the supervising
institution provides on-site
mentors with training and
guidance for their ongoing
supervision and evaluation of
intern candidates.
• Programdescription
provides limited information
concerning the training of
on-site mentors.
• Programdescriptionfails
to provide any explanation
of how the supervising
institution provides on-site
mentors with training and
guidance for their ongoing
supervision and evaluation of
intern candidates.
41
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Examples of Evidence of Candidate Competence
The following examples are provided to assist educational leadership preparation programs in thinking
through the kinds of candidate work that would provide sufficient evidence that NELP standard
components are met. There is no expectation that programs would use these exact examples. Each
example is aligned closely with the content and complexity of the component expectations and
suggest categories of evidence that programs might consider when in crafting assessments that would
include these or similar actions. Unlike specifications of assessment tasks, each example describes
actions a candidate might take to demonstrate that the component is met in its entirety.
Examples of Evidence of Candidate Competencies for Standard 1: Mission, Vision, and Improvement
Component 1.1 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to collaboratively
evaluate, develop, and communicate a school mission and vision designed to reflect a core set of values
and priorities that include data use, technology, equity, diversity, digital citizenship, and community.
• Candidate involves a group of diverse community members in completing a case study
focused on building and communicating about a shared mission and vision that reflect
a set of core values and priorities that include data use, technology, equity, diversity,
digital citizenship, and community.
• During a role-play of a school community meeting focused on designing a school
mission and vision, the candidate’s comments and behavior demonstrate his/her ability
to use a set of core values and priorities to evaluate an existing mission and vision and
to engage others in designing a new mission and vision.
• Candidate completes a required course assignment requiring multiple days of
planning or an assessment focused on developing a school mission and vision.
The assignment is assessed by program faculty using a rubric that addresses the
extent to which major content and skill areas involved in evaluating, developing,
and communicating about a mission and vision that reflect a core set of values and
priorities are appropriately addressed.
Component 1.2 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to lead
improvement processes that include data use, design, implementation, and evaluation.
• Candidate collaborates with a group of faculty members to design a school
improvement process that includes data use, design, implementation, and evaluation.
• During a role-play of a school improvement meeting, candidate demonstrates a strong
understanding of the school improvement process, effective data use, and the ability to
engage others in the improvement process.
• Candidate develops a research-informed training program for school staff that fosters
staff capacity to collaboratively engage in the process of school improvement.
• Candidate collaborates with other educators to review pertinent data and takes
the initiative to design, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of a small-scale
improvement project.
42
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Examples of Evidence of Candidate Competencies for Standard 2: Ethics and Professional Norms
Component 2.1 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to reflect on,
communicate about, cultivate, and model professional dispositions and norms (e.g., fairness,
integrity, transparency, trust, digital citizenship, collaboration, perseverance, reflection, lifelong
learning) that support the educational success and well-being of each student and adult.
• Using simulated or field experiences, the candidate reflects on, communicates,
cultivates, and models professional dispositions and norms that support educational
success and the well-being of learners and adults.
• Using a case study for evidence, the candidate reflects on the extant professional
dispositions and norms and communicates, cultivates, and models the professional
dispositions and norms from the case that would support educational success and the
well-being of learners and adults.
• The candidate develops a researched-based training program for educators on how
to reflect on, communicate about, cultivate, and model professional dispositions and
norms that support the educational success and well-being of each student and adult.
Component 2.2 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
communicate about, and advocate for ethical and legal decisions.
• Using a case study or field experiences, the candidate uses the evidence presented by
the experience to evaluate the ethical and legal implications of the situation and then
communicates and advocates for appropriate legal and ethical decisions.
• During a role-play of a situation in which there is a legal and ethical dilemma, the
candidate uses the information presented in the role-play to evaluate the ethical and
legal implications of the situation and then communicates and advocates for legal and
ethical decisions.
• The candidate develops a research-informed training program for educators on how to
evaluate, communicate about, and advocate for ethical and legal decisions.
Component 2.3 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to model ethical
behavior in their personal conduct and relationships and to cultivate ethical behavior in others.
• Throughout his/her coursework and field experiences, the candidate conducts him/
herself in an ethical manner and conducts his/her relationships in such a manner that
they cultivate ethical actions in others.
• In role-play scenarios, the candidate assumes a role and conducts him/herself in an
ethical manner and conducts his/her relationships in such a manner that they cultivate
ethical actions in others.
• The candidate completes a portfolio in which s/he documents examples of how s/
he has modeled ethical behavior in his/her personal conduct and relationships and
cultivated ethical behavior in others.
43
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Examples of Evidence of Candidate Competencies for Standard 3: Equity, Inclusiveness, and
Cultural Responsiveness
Component 3.1 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to use data to
evaluate, design, cultivate, and advocate for a supportive and inclusive school culture.
• Using data presented during coursework or from a field site, the candidate writes a
plan for how s/he would evaluate these data and then uses inferences from the data to
design and cultivate a more supportive and inclusive school culture.
• In role-play scenarios, the candidate uses data to evaluate, design, cultivate, and
advocate for a supportive and inclusive school culture.
• The candidate completes a capstone project that includes a written analysis of a school
culture and articulates the necessary steps to evaluate, design, cultivate, and advocate
for improvement in the supportive and inclusive nature of the school culture.
Component 3.2 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
cultivate, and advocate for equitable access to educational resources, technologies, and
opportunities that support the educational success and well-being of each student.
• Using data from well-crafted simulations or from field sites, the candidate articulates
a plan for evaluating, cultivating, and advocating for equitable access to educational
resources, technologies, and opportunities that support the educational success and
well-being of each student.
• The candidate conducts an equity audit of a field site and then uses this audit to
articulate a plan for cultivating and advocating for equitable access to educational
resources, technologies, and opportunities that support the educational success and
well-being of each student.
• The candidate develops a research-informed training program that provides guidance
for educators on how to evaluate, cultivate, and advocate for equitable access to
educational resources, technologies, and opportunities that support the educational
success and well-being of each student.
Component 3.3 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
cultivate, and advocate for equitable, inclusive, and culturally responsive instruction and behavior
support practices among teachers and staff.
• Using data on instruction and behavioral support from well-crafted simulations or from
field sites, the candidate provides a plan for how s/he would evaluate, cultivate, and
advocate for equitable, inclusive, and culturally responsive instruction and behavior
support practices among teachers and staff.
• The candidate designs an entry plan documenting how s/he might evaluate,
cultivate, and advocate for equitable, inclusive, and culturally responsive instruction
and behavior support practices among teachers and staff upon securing a school
leadership position.
44
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
• The candidate engages in a simulation with others during which the candidate needs to
collaboratively evaluate, cultivate, and advocate for equitable, inclusive, and culturally
responsive instruction and behavior support practices.
Examples of Evidence of Candidate Competencies for Standard 4: Learning and Instruction
Component 4.1 Program completers understand and can demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement high-quality, technology-rich curricula programs and other supports for
academic and non-academic student programs.
• The candidate gathers appropriate data on programs and other academic and non-
academic student programs and then uses these data to craft a written plan for
evaluating the effectiveness of the programs and identifies improvements to the
programs and how to implement strategies that lead to the identified improvements.
• The candidate completes a capstone project in which s/he evaluates, develops, and
articulates the steps necessary to implement high-quality, technology-rich curricula
programs and other supports for academic and non-academic student programs.
• The candidate develops a research-informed training program that provides guidance
to educators on how to evaluate, develop, and implement high-quality, technology-rich
curricula programs and other supports for academic and non-academic student programs.
Component 4.2 Program completers understand and can demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement high-quality and equitable academic and non-academic instructional
practices, resources, technologies, and services that support equity, digital literacy, and the
school’s academic and non-academic systems.
• The candidate gathers appropriate data on instructional practices, resources,
technologies, and services and then evaluates them to identify improvements and
refinements to the services. The candidate crafts a written plan articulating the data
used to identify program improvements and the implementation strategies necessary
for improving the services.
• Using a case study approach, the candidate gleans the appropriate and germane data
and then evaluates these data to design high-quality and equitable academic and non-
academic instructional practices, resources, technologies, and services that support
equity, digital literacy, and the school’s academic and non-academic systems. The
candidate articulates the steps necessary for implementing these practices.
• The candidate completes a portfolio entry in which s/he includes an example from
his/her coursework or field experiences that demonstrates an example of how s/he
evaluated academic and non-academic instructional practices, resources, technologies,
and services and then used his/her evaluation to develop and recommend
implementation steps for ensuring the likelihood that these services support equity,
digital literacy, and a school’s academic and non-academic programs.
Component 4.3 Program completers understand and can demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement formal and informal culturally responsive and accessible assessments that
support data-informed instructional improvement and student learning and well-being.
• Using assessments and data from well-crafted simulations or from field sites, the
candidate articulates a plan for evaluating the cultural responsiveness and accessibility
of assessments and then identifies necessary improvements to the assessments and
how the identified improvements can be implemented.
• The candidate develops a research-informed training program for educators that
provides guidance on how to evaluate, develop, and implement formal and informal
culturally responsive and accessible assessments that support data-informed
instructional improvement and student learning and well-being.
• The candidate designs an entry plan for a new leadership position that includes how s/
he might evaluate and develop formal and informal culturally responsive and accessible
assessments that support data-informed instructional improvement and student
learning and well-being and the steps necessary to review, refine, and implement the
assessments.
Component 4.4 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to collaboratively
evaluate, develop, and implement the school’s curriculum, instruction, technology, data systems,
and assessment practices in a coherent, equitable, and systematic manner.
• Candidate creates a comprehensive entry plan for how s/he will collaboratively evaluate
the school’s curriculum, instruction, technology, data, and assessment practices
and how this information will be used to identify improvement/refinements and the
implementation steps necessary for implementing them.
• Using data from well-crafted simulations or field sites, the candidate completes a
capstone project in which s/he articulates the steps necessary to evaluate and develop
a school’s curriculum, instruction, technology, data systems, and assessment practices
in a coherent, equitable, and systematic manner.
• The candidate develops a research-informed training program that provides guidance
on how to evaluate a school’s curriculum, instruction, technology, data, and assessment
practices and uses this information to identify improvement/refinements and the steps
necessary for implementing them.
Examples of Evidence of Candidate Competencies for Standard 5: Community and
External Leadership
Component 5.1 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to collaboratively
engage diverse families in strengthening student learning in and out of school.
• Candidate collaborates with a group of parents and school staff to design a school-
wide program for engaging families in supporting student learning.
• During a role-play of a parent conference, candidate demonstrates effective two-way
communication, develops an understanding of family strengths, and works with parents
to identify ways to engage families in supporting student learning.
• Candidate develops a research-informed training program for school staff that fosters
staff capacity to identify and use family funds of knowledge to enhance student learning.
46
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 5.2 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to collaboratively
engage and cultivate relationships with diverse community members, partners, and other
constituencies for the benefit of school improvement and student development.
• Candidate involves a group of diverse community members in completing a case study
focused on cultivating relationships within the community around shared goals.
• Candidate develops a research-informed training program for school staff that fosters
staff capacity to cultivate partnerships, foster two-way communication, and engage
families in supporting school improvement and student learning.
• Candidate drafts a comprehensive community engagement plan that includes various
strategies for reaching out and maintaining contact with a variety of community members.
Component 5.3 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to communicate
through oral, written, and digital means within the larger organizational, community, and political
contexts when advocating for the needs of their school and community.
• Candidate drafts a comprehensive communication plan that includes multiple forms
of communication (e.g., oral, written, and digital) strategies for reaching a variety of
stakeholder communities.
• Candidate collaborates with a group of parents and school staff to assess school
community needs and develop an advocacy plan that reflects those needs.
• Candidate completes a required course assignment requiring multiple days of planning
or an assessment focused on advocacy leadership. The assignment is assessed by
program faculty using a rubric that addresses the extent to which the major content and
skill areas involved in conducting needs assessments, assessing the policy environment,
and advocating for school and community needs are appropriately addressed.
Examples of Evidence of Candidate Competencies for Standard 6: Operations and Management
Component 6.1 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to evaluate, develop,
and implement management, communication, technology, school-level governance, and operation
systems that support each student’s learning needs and promote the mission and vision of the school.
• Candidate uses a process for auditing the equity and efficiency of school processes and
operations to inform the development of strategies for implementing more equitable
and efficient systems.
• Candidate involves a group of school staff in completing a case study focused on
evaluating, developing, and implementing management, communication, technology,
school-level governance, and operation systems.
• Candidate completes a required course assignment requiring multiple days of planning
or an assessment focused on operations and management systems. The assignment
is assessed by program faculty using a rubric that addresses the extent to which the
major content and skill areas involved in evaluating, developing, and implementing
management, communication, technology, school-level governance, and operation
systems are appropriately addressed.
47
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 6.2 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and advocate for a data-informed and equitable resourcing plan that supports school
improvement and student development.
• Candidate collaborates with a group of parents and school staff to design a data-informed
and equitable resourcing plan that supports school improvement and student development.
• During a role-play of a school community meeting focused on school resource
needs, candidate demonstrates the ability to present data that reflects school needs,
effectively respond to questions regarding those needs, and offer a well-informed
advocacy plan for addressing needs.
• Candidate monitors use of school resources to identify areas where resources can be
more effectively allocated as well as where additional resources are needed.
Component 6.3 Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to reflectively
evaluate, communicate about, and implement laws, rights, policies, and regulations to promote
student and adult success and well-being.
• Candidate conducts an analysis of how a law or policy is implemented in a school
setting and uses that analysis to provide recommendations for improvements.
• Candidate develops a research-informed training program for school staff that fosters
staff understanding and ability to effectively communicate and implement a law, policy,
or regulation.
• In a simulated Individual Education Plan (IEP) meeting, candidate demonstrates the
capacity to reflectively evaluate and communicate about plans to meet the needs of a
student with a learning disability.
Examples of Evidence of Candidate Competencies for Standard 7: Building Professional Capacity
Component 7.1 Program completers understand and have the capacity to collaboratively develop
the school’s professional capacity through engagement in recruiting, selecting, and hiring staff.
• Candidate collaborates with a group of teachers and school administrators to design a
data-informed plan for recruiting, selecting, and hiring staff.
• Candidate develops a research-informed training program for school staff that fosters
the candidate’s ability to effectively engage in the recruitment and selection process
that reflects school staffing needs and hiring policies.
• During a role-play of a teacher job interview, candidate demonstrates the ability to ask
probing questions that reflect an understanding of the applicant’s strengths and the
school’s needs and priorities and to provide answers to applicant questions that reflect
the school’s hiring policies.
Component 7.2 Program completers understand and have the capacity to develop and engage
staff in a collaborative professional culture designed to promote school improvement, teacher
retention, and the success and well-being of each student and adult in the school.
48
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
• Candidate uses a process for auditing the culture of the school and then uses the
findings of that audit to develop and communicate a plan for collaboratively developing
a professional school culture.
• Candidate involves a group of teachers and other school staff members in completing
a case study focused on developing a collaborative professional culture designed to
promote school improvement, teacher retention, and the success and well-being of
each student and adult in the school.
• Candidate completes a required course assignment requiring multiple days of planning
or an assessment focused on developing a professional culture designed to promote
school improvement, teacher retention, and the success and well-being of each student
and adult in the school. The assignment is assessed by program faculty using a rubric
that addresses the extent to which major content and skill areas involved in developing
and engaging staff in this work are appropriately addressed.
Component 7.3 Program completers understand and have the capacity to personally engage in, as well
as collaboratively engage school staff in, professional learning designed to promote reflection, cultural
responsiveness, distributed leadership, digital literacy, school improvement, and student success.
• Candidate uses a process for evaluating the professional learning needs of school
staff and then uses the findings of that evaluation to develop professional learning
opportunities that promote reflection, cultural responsiveness, distributed leadership,
digital literacy, school improvement, and student success.
• During a simulation of a staff development meeting, candidate demonstrates the
ability to engage others in processes that promote reflection, cultural responsiveness,
distributed leadership, digital literacy, school improvement, and/or student success.
• Candidate engages school staff in professional learning that promotes reflection,
cultural responsiveness, distributed leadership, digital literacy, school improvement,
and student success.
Component 7.4 Program completers understand and have the capacity to evaluate, develop,
and implement systems of supervision, support, and evaluation designed to promote school
improvement and student success.
• Candidate uses a process for auditing the equity and efficiency of school supervision,
evaluation, and support processes to inform the development of strategies for
implementing more equitable and efficient systems.
• Candidate works with a group of master teachers to design a research-informed
training program for teacher leaders that fosters their ability to provide peer evaluations
and support.
• Candidate completes a required course assignment requiring multiple days of planning
or an assessment focused on staff supervision. The assignment is assessed by program
faculty using a rubric that addresses the extent to which the major content and skill
areas involved in evaluating, developing, and implementing a system of supervision,
support, and evaluation are addressed.
49
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
NELP Building-Level Candidate Assessment Rubric Guidance
The following Assessment Rubric Guidance is intended to serve as a resource to programs
as they develop candidate assessment rubrics. When developing rubrics to assess candidate
performance, the NELP SPA recommends, three performance levels: Approaching, Meets, and
Exceeds. The rubrics should reflect the relevant NELP component as well as the performance or
product being assessed.
Definition of Rubric Performance Levels
The basis for evaluating building-level leadership candidate competence is defined as the
following three performance levels and is to be applied with the NELP assessment rubrics.
Level 1—Approaching. Level 1 represents a level of developing candidate performance in which
there is evidence that the candidate meets some but not all of the component’s expectations. At
this level, the candidate has developed content knowledge and understanding, but there is not
sufficient evidence of a candidate’s ability for independent practice for all parts of the component
expectations.
Level 2—Meets. Level 2 represents a level of candidate performance in which the candidate
understands and demonstrates the capacity to meet component expectations at an acceptable
level for a candidate who is completing a building-level educational leadership preparation
program and is ready to begin independently leading in a K-12 school.
Level 3—Exceeds. Level 3 represents a level of performance in which the candidate demonstrates
performance characteristics that exceed the component’s expectations by demonstrating his/her
understanding and skills through effective leadership practice within a school context. This level
represents exemplary practice for a candidate who is completing a building-level educational
leadership preparation program and is ready to begin independently leading in a K-12 school.
50
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 1: Mission, Vision, and Improvement
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership preparation program understand and
demonstrate the capacity to promote the current and future success and well-being of each student and adult by
applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments necessary to collaboratively lead, design, and implement a school
mission, vision, and process for continuous improvement that reflects a core set of values and priorities.
Standard/Component Approaching Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
Component 1.1 Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to collaboratively
evaluate, develop, and
communicate a school
mission and vision
designed to reflect a core
set of values and priorities.
Key question: How
do candidates use
their understanding of
developing a vision and
mission to collaboratively
evaluate, develop, and
communicate a school
mission and vision
designed to reflect a core
set of values and priorities?
Candidates understand
the
role and importance of a
school’s vision and mission
as well as processes
for evaluating and
collaboratively developing
a mission and vision.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity
to engage in the following:
1) evaluate an existing
mission and vision
statement,
2) collaboratively design
a school mission and
vision that reflects a
core set of values and
priorities, and
3) develop a
comprehensive plan
for communicating the
mission and vision.
Candidates understand
the
role and importance of a
school’s vision and mission
as well as processes
for evaluating and
collaboratively developing
a mission and vision.
Candidates apply their
understanding to:
1) evaluate an existing
mission and vision
statement,
2) collaboratively design
a school mission and
vision that reflects a
core set of values and
priorities, and
3) develop a
comprehensive plan
for communicating the
mission and vision.
Candidates understand
the
role and importance of a
school’s vision and mission
as well as processes
for evaluating and
collaboratively developing
a mission and vision.
Candidates apply their
understanding to:
1) evaluate an existing
mission and vision
statement,
2) collaboratively design
a school mission and
vision that reflects a
core set of values and
priorities, and
3) develop a
comprehensive plan
for communicating the
mission and vision.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
51
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 1.2 Program
completers understand
and demonstrate
the capacity to lead
improvement processes
that include data use,
design, implementation,
and evaluation.
Key question: How do
candidates use their
understanding of the
improvement process
to lead improvement
processes that include
data use, design,
implementation, and
evaluation?
Candidates understand
the process of continuous
improvement and are
knowledgeable of research
on school improvement
and implementation theory
and research.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity
to engage in the following:
1) evaluate or design an
improvement process,
and
2) develop an
implementation process
that supports school
improvement.
Candidates understand
the process of continuous
improvement and are
knowledgeable of research
on school improvement
and implementation theory
and research.
Candidates apply their
understanding to:
1) evaluate existing
improvement
processes,
2) design a collaborative
improvement process
that includes key
components (i.e.,
data use, design,
implementation, and
evaluation), and
3) develop an
implementation process
that supports the
components and goals
of the improvement
process.
Candidates understand
the process of continuous
improvement and are
knowledgeable of research
on school improvement
and implementation theory
and research.
Candidates apply their
understanding to:
1) evaluate existing
improvement
processes,
2) design a collaborative
improvement process
that includes key
components (i.e.,
data use, design,
implementation, and
evaluation), and
3) develop an
implementation process
that supports the
components and goals
of the improvement
process.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
52
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 2: Ethics and Professional Norms
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership preparation program understand and
demonstrate the capacity to promote the current and future success and well-being of each student and adult by
applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments necessary to understand and demonstrate the capacity to advocate
for ethical decisions and cultivate and enact professional norms.
Standard/Component Approaching Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
Component 2.1 Program
completers understand and
demonstrate the capacity
to reflect on, communicate
about, cultivate, and model
professional dispositions
and norms (e.g., fairness,
integrity, transparency,
trust, collaboration,
perseverance, reflection,
lifelong learning, digital
citizenship) that support the
educational success and
well-being of each student
and adult.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to reflect on,
communicate about,
cultivate, and model
professional dispositions
and norms that support the
educational success and
well-being of each student
and adult?
Candidates understand
the role and importance
of reflective practice and
professional dispositions
and norms that support
the educational success
and well-being of each
student.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity
to engage in reflective
practice, cultivate,
model, and communicate
professional norms that
support the educational
success and well-being of
each student and adult.
Candidates understand
the role and importance
of reflective practice and
professional dispositions
and norms that support
the educational success
and well-being of each
student.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to engage
in reflective practice and
cultivate, model, and
communicate professional
norms that support the
educational success and
well-being of each student
and adult.
Candidates understand
the role and importance
of reflective practice and
professional dispositions
and norms that support
the educational success
and well-being of each
student.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to engage
in reflective practice and
cultivate, model, and
communicate professional
norms that support the
educational success and
well-being of each student
and adult.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
53
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 2.2 Program
completers understand and
demonstrate the capacity
to evaluate, communicate
about, and advocate for
ethical and legal decisions.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to evaluate,
communicate about, and
advocate for ethical and
legal decisions?
Candidates understand
ethical and legal decision
making.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity
to evaluate the ethical
dimensions of issues,
analyze decisions in
terms of established
ethical frameworks, or
communicate about and
advocate for ethical and
legal decisions.
Candidates understand
ethical and legal decision
making.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to evaluate
the ethical dimensions of
issues, analyze decisions
in terms of established
ethical frameworks, or
communicate about and
advocate for ethical and
legal decisions.
Candidates understand
ethical and legal decision
making.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to evaluate
the ethical dimensions of
issues, analyze decisions
in terms of established
ethical frameworks, or
communicate about and
advocate for ethical and
legal decisions.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
Component 2.3 Program
completers understand and
demonstrate the capacity
to model ethical behavior
in their personal conduct
and relationships and to
cultivate ethical behavior in
others.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to model ethical
behavior in their personal
conduct and relationships
and to cultivate ethical
behavior in others?
Candidates understand
ethical behavior and the
importance of:
1) modeling ethical
behavior in their
personal conduct and
relationships, and
2) cultivating ethical
behavior in others.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity
to model ethical behavior
in their personal conduct
and relationships and/or
cultivate ethical behavior
in others.
Candidates understand
ethical behavior and the
importance of:
1) modeling ethical
behavior in their
personal conduct and
relationships, and
2) cultivating ethical
behavior in others.
Candidates can
demonstrate the capacity
to:
1) model ethical
behavior in their
personal conduct and
relationships, and
2) cultivate ethical
behavior in others.
Candidates understand
ethical behavior and the
importance of:
1) modeling ethical
behavior in their
personal conduct and
relationships, and
2) cultivating ethical
behavior in others.
Candidates can
demonstrate the capacity
to:
1) model ethical
behavior in their
personal conduct and
relationships and
2) cultivate ethical
behavior in others.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
54
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 3: Equity, Inclusiveness, and Cultural Responsiveness
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership preparation program understand
and demonstrate the capacity to promote the current and future success and well-being of each student and adult
by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments necessary to develop and maintain a supportive, equitable,
culturally responsive and inclusive school culture.
Standard/Component Approaching Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
Component 3.1 Program
completers understand and
demonstrate the capacity
to use data to evaluate,
design, cultivate, and
advocate for a supportive
and inclusive school
culture.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to evaluate,
design, cultivate, and
advocate for a supportive
and inclusive school
culture?
Candidates understand
the knowledge and
theory on how to use
data to evaluate, design,
cultivate, and advocate for
a supportive and inclusive
school culture.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity
to evaluate school culture,
design and cultivate a
supportive and inclusive
school culture, develop
strategies for improving
school culture, and
advocate for a supportive
and inclusive school
culture.
Candidates understand
the knowledge and
theory on how to use
data to evaluate, design,
cultivate, and advocate for
a supportive and inclusive
school culture.
Candidates can
demonstrate the capacity
to evaluate school culture,
design and cultivate a
supportive and inclusive
school culture, develop
strategies for improving
school culture, and
advocate for a supportive
and inclusive school
culture.
Candidates understand
the knowledge and
theory on how to use
data to evaluate, design,
cultivate, and advocate for
a supportive and inclusive
school culture.
Candidates can
demonstrate the capacity
to evaluate school culture,
design and cultivate a
supportive and inclusive
school culture, develop
strategies for improving
school culture, and
advocate for a supportive
and inclusive school
culture.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
55
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 3.2 Program
completers understand and
demonstrate the capacity
to evaluate, cultivate, and
advocate for equitable
access to educational
resources, technologies,
and opportunities that
support the educational
success and well-being of
each student.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to evaluate,
cultivate, and advocate
for equitable access to
educational resources,
technologies, and
opportunities that support
the educational success
and well-being of each
student?
Candidates understand
the knowledge and theory
about how to evaluate,
cultivate, and advocate
for equitable access to
educational resources,
technologies, and
opportunities that support
the educational success
and well-being of each
student.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) evaluate sources of
inequality and bias
in the allocation of
educational resources
and opportunities,
2) cultivate the equitable
use of educational
resources and
opportunities through
procedures, guidelines,
norms, and values, and
3) advocate for equitable
access to educational
resources and
opportunities that
support the educational
success and well-being
of each student.
Candidates understand
the knowledge and theory
about how to evaluate,
cultivate, and advocate
for equitable access to
educational resources,
technologies, and
opportunities that support
the educational success
and well-being of each
student.
Candidates can
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) evaluate sources of
inequality and bias
in the allocation of
educational resources
and opportunities,
2) cultivate the equitable
use of educational
resources and
opportunities through
procedures, guidelines,
norms, and values, and
3) advocate for equitable
access to educational
resources and
opportunities that
support the educational
success and well-being
of each student.
Candidates can
understand the knowledge
and theory about how
to evaluate, cultivate,
and advocate in a school
setting for equitable
access to educational
resources, technologies,
and opportunities that
support the educational
success and well-being of
each student.
Candidates can
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) evaluate sources of
inequality and bias
in the allocation of
educational resources
and opportunities,
2) cultivate the equitable
use of educational
resources and
opportunities through
procedures, guidelines,
norms, and values, and
3) advocate for equitable
access to educational
resources and
opportunities that
support the educational
success and well-being
of each student.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
56
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 3.3 Program
completers understand and
demonstrate the capacity
to evaluate, cultivate, and
advocate for equitable,
inclusive, and culturally
responsive instruction and
behavior support practices
among teachers and staff.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to evaluate,
cultivate, and advocate
for equitable, inclusive,
and culturally responsive
instruction and behavior
support practices among
teachers and staff?
Candidates understand
the knowledge and theory
to evaluate, cultivate, and
advocate for equitable,
inclusive, and culturally
responsive instruction and
behavior support practices
among teachers and staff.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) evaluate the root
causes of inequity and
bias,
2) cultivate equitable,
inclusive, and culturally
responsive practice
among teachers and
staff, and
3) advocate for equitable
practices among
teachers and staff.
Candidates understand
the knowledge and theory
to evaluate, cultivate, and
advocate for equitable,
inclusive, and culturally
responsive instruction and
behavior support practices
among teachers and staff.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) evaluate the root
causes of inequity and
bias,
2) cultivate equitable,
inclusive, and culturally
responsive practice
among teachers and
staff, and
3) advocate for equitable
practices among
teachers and staff.
Candidates understand
the knowledge and theory
to evaluate, cultivate, and
advocate for equitable,
inclusive, and culturally
responsive instruction and
behavior support practices
among teachers and staff
within a school setting.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) evaluate the root
causes of inequity and
bias,
2) cultivate equitable,
inclusive, and culturally
responsive practice
among teachers and
staff, and
3) advocate for equitable
practices among
teachers and staff.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
57
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 4: Learning and Instruction
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership preparation program understand and
demonstrate the capacity to promote the current and future success and well-being of each student and adult by
applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments necessary to evaluate, develop, and implement coherent systems
of curriculum, instruction, supports, and assessment.
Standard/Component Approaching Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
Component 4.1 Program
completers understand
and can demonstrate
the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement
high-quality, technology-
rich curricula programs
and other supports for
academic and non-
academic student
programs.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement
high-quality, technology-
rich curricula programs
and other supports for
academic and non-
academic student
programs?
Candidates understand
the knowledge and
theory concerning how
to evaluate, develop, and
implement high-quality,
technology-rich curricula
programs and other
supports for academic and
non-academic student
programs.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity
to apply knowledge and
theory to:
1) evaluate curricula and
use of technology
and other supports in
academic and non-
academic systems, and
2) develop and
implement high-quality,
technology-rich, and
coherent curricula
programs and other
supports for academic
and non-academic
student programs.
Candidates understand
the knowledge and
theory concerning how
to evaluate, develop, and
implement high-quality,
technology-rich curricula
programs and other
supports for academic and
non-academic student
programs.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) evaluate curricula and
use of technology
and other supports in
academic and non-
academic systems, and
2) develop and
implement high-quality,
technology-rich, and
coherent curricula
programs and other
supports for academic
and non-academic
student programs.
Candidates understand
the knowledge and
theory concerning how
to evaluate, develop, and
implement high-quality,
technology-rich curricula
programs and other
supports for academic and
non-academic student
programs.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) evaluate curricula and
use of technology
and other supports in
academic and non-
academic systems, and
2) develop and
implement high-quality,
technology-rich, and
coherent curricula
programs and other
supports for academic
and non-academic
student programs.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
58
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 4.2 Program
completers understand
and can demonstrate
the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement
high-quality and equitable
academic and non-
academic instructional
practices, resources,
technologies, and services
that support equity, digital
literacy, and the school’s
academic and non-
academic systems.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement
high-quality and equitable
academic and non-
academic instructional
practices, resources,
technologies, and services
that support student and
adult learning?
Candidates understand
the knowledge and
theory concerning how
to evaluate, develop, and
implement high-quality
and equitable academic
and non-academic
instructional practices,
resources, technologies,
and services that support
equity, digital literacy, and
the school’s academic and
non-academic systems.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) evaluate coordination
and coherence among
the practices, resources,
technologies, and
services that support
equity, digital literacy,
and the school’s
academic and non-
academic systems, and
2) develop plans and
implementation
strategies for improving
the impact of academic
and non-academic
practices, resources,
technologies, and
services that support
student learning.
Candidates understand
the knowledge and
theory concerning how
to evaluate, develop, and
implement high-quality
and equitable academic
and non-academic
instructional practices,
resources, technologies,
and services that support
equity, digital literacy, and
the school’s academic and
non-academic systems.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) evaluate coordination
and coherence among
the practices, resources,
technologies, and
services that support
equity, digital literacy,
and the school’s
academic and non-
academic systems, and
2) develop plans and
implementation
strategies for improving
the impact of academic
and non-academic
practices, resources,
technologies, and
services that support
student learning.
Candidates understand
the knowledge and
theory concerning how
to evaluate, develop, and
implement high-quality
and equitable academic
and non-academic
instructional practices,
resources, technologies,
and services that support
equity, digital literacy, and
the school’s academic and
non-academic systems.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) evaluate coordination
and coherence among
the practices, resources,
technologies, and
services that support
equity, digital literacy,
and the school’s
academic and non-
academic systems, and
2) develop plans and
implementation
strategies for improving
the impact of academic
and non-academic
practices, resources,
technologies, and
services that support
student learning.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
59
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 4.3 Program
completers understand
and can demonstrate
the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement
formal and informal
culturally responsive and
accessible assessments
that support data-informed
instructional improvement
and student learning and
well-being.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement
formal and informal
culturally responsive and
accessible assessments
that support instructional
improvement and student
learning and well-being?
Candidates understand
the requisite knowledge
and theory to evaluate,
develop, and implement
formal and informal
culturally responsive and
accessible assessments
that support data-informed
instructional improvement
and student learning and
well-being.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) evaluate the quality
of formative and
summative assessments
of learning,
2) implement formal
and informal culturally
responsive and
accessible assessments
of student learning,
3) interpret data from
formative and
summative assessments
for use in educational
planning, and
4) cultivate teachers’
capacity to improve
instruction based on
analysis of assessment
data.
.
Candidates understand
the requisite knowledge
and theory to evaluate,
develop, and implement
formal and informal
culturally responsive and
accessible assessments
that support data-informed
instructional improvement
and student learning and
well-being.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) evaluate the quality
of formative and
summative assessments
of learning,
2) implement formal
and informal culturally
responsive and
accessible assessments
of student learning,
3) interpret data from
formative and
summative assessments
for use in educational
planning, and
4) cultivate teachers’
capacity to improve
instruction based on
analysis of assessment
data.
Candidates understand
the requisite knowledge
and theory to evaluate,
develop, and implement
formal and informal
culturally responsive and
accessible assessments
that support data-informed
instructional improvement
and student learning and
well-being.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) evaluate the quality
of formative and
summative assessments
of learning,
2) implement formal
and informal culturally
responsive and
accessible assessments
of student learning,
3) interpret data from
formative and
summative assessments
for use in educational
planning, and
4) cultivate teachers’
capacity to improve
instruction based on
analysis of assessment
data.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
60
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 4.4 Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to collaboratively
evaluate, develop, and
implement the school’s
curriculum, instruction,
technology, data systems,
and assessment practices in
a coherent, equitable, and
systematic manner.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to collaboratively
evaluate, develop, and
implement the school’s
curriculum, instruction,
technology, data systems,
and assessment practices in
a coherent, equitable, and
systematic manner?
Candidates understand
requisite knowledge and
theory to collaboratively
evaluate, develop, and
implement the school’s
curriculum, instruction,
technology, data systems,
and assessment practices
in a coherent, equitable,
and systematic manner.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) engage faculty in
gathering, synthesizing,
and using data to
evaluate the quality,
coordination, and
coherence of the
school’s curriculum,
instruction, technology,
data systems, and
assessment practices,
2) propose designs
and implementation
strategies for improving
coordination and
coherence among the
school’s curriculum,
instruction, technology,
data systems, and
assessment practices,
and
Candidates understand
requisite knowledge and
theory to collaboratively
evaluate, develop, and
implement the school’s
curriculum, instruction,
technology, data systems,
and assessment practices
in a coherent, equitable,
and systematic manner.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) engage faculty in
gathering, synthesizing,
and using data to
evaluate the quality,
coordination, and
coherence of the
school’s curriculum,
instruction, technology,
data systems, and
assessment practices,
2) propose designs
and implementation
strategies for improving
coordination and
coherence among the
school’s curriculum,
instruction, technology,
data systems, and
assessment practices,
and
Candidates understand
requisite knowledge and
theory to collaboratively
evaluate, develop, and
implement the school’s
curriculum, instruction,
technology, data systems,
and assessment practices
in a coherent, equitable,
and systematic manner.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) engage faculty in
gathering, synthesizing,
and using data to
evaluate the quality,
coordination, and
coherence of the
school’s curriculum,
instruction, technology,
data systems, and
assessment practices,
2) propose designs
and implementation
strategies for improving
coordination and
coherence among the
school’s curriculum,
instruction, technology,
data systems, and
assessment practices,
and
3) use technology
and performance
management systems
to monitor, analyze,
implement, and
evaluate school
curriculum, instruction,
technology, data
systems, and
assessment practices
and results.
3) use technology
and performance
management systems
to monitor, analyze,
implement, and
evaluate school
curriculum, instruction,
technology, data
systems, and
assessment practices
and results.
3) use technology
and performance
management systems
to monitor, analyze,
implement, and
evaluate school
curriculum, instruction,
technology, data
systems, and
assessment practices
and results.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
61
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 5: Community and External Leadership
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership preparation program understand
and demonstrate the capacity to promote the current and future success and well-being of each student and
adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments necessary to engage families, community, and school
personnel in order to strengthen student learning, support school improvement, and advocate for the needs of
their school and community.
Standard/Component Approaching Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
Component 5.1 Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to collaboratively
engage diverse families
in strengthening student
learning in and out of
school.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to collaboratively
engage diverse families
in strengthening student
learning in and out of
school?
Candidates understand
the importance of and
how to collaboratively
engage diverse families
in strengthening student
learning in and out of
school.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity
to gather information
about families, cultivate
collaboration among staff
and families, and foster
two-way communication
with families.
Candidates understand
the importance of and
how to collaboratively
engage diverse families
in strengthening student
learning in and out of
school.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to develop
processes for gathering
information about families
and family funds of
knowledge, cultivating
partnerships between staff
and families, and fostering
two-way communication
with families.
Candidates understand
the importance of and
how to collaboratively
engage diverse families
in strengthening student
learning in and out of
school and use this
knowledge to develop
processes for gathering
information about families
and family funds of
knowledge, cultivating
partnerships between staff
and families, and fostering
two-way communication
with families.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
62
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 5.2 Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to understand,
collaboratively engage,
and cultivate relationships
with diverse community
members, partners, and
other constituencies for
the benefit of school
improvement and student
development.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to understand,
collaboratively engage,
and cultivate relationships
with diverse community
members, partners, and
other constituencies for
the benefit of school
improvement and student
development?
Candidates understand
the importance of and
how to understand,
collaboratively engage,
and cultivate relationships
with diverse community
members, partners, and
other constituencies for
the benefit of school
improvement and student
development.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity
to identify and use diverse
community resources
or to engage with and
cultivate regular, two-way
communication with them.
Candidates understand
the importance of and
how to understand,
collaboratively engage,
and cultivate relationships
with diverse community
members, partners, and
other constituencies for
the benefit of school
improvement and student
development.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to identify
diverse community
resources and devise plans
for the following:
1) using such resources
to benefit school
programs and student
learning,
2) engaging with
community members,
partners, and other
constituencies around
shared goals, and
3) cultivating regular, two-
way communication
with them.
Candidates understand
the importance of and
how to understand,
collaboratively engage,
and cultivate relationships
with diverse community
members, partners, and
other constituencies for
the benefit of school
improvement and student
development.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to identify
diverse community
resources and devise plans
for the following:
1) using such resources
to benefit school
programs and student
learning,
2) engaging with
community members,
partners, and other
constituencies around
shared goals, and
3) cultivating regular, two-
way communication
with them.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
63
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 5.3 Program
completers understand and
demonstrate the capacity
to communicate through
oral, written, and digital
means with the larger
organizational, community,
and political contexts
when advocating for the
needs of their school and
community.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to communicate
through oral, written,
and digital means with
the larger organizational,
community, and political
contexts when advocating
for the needs of their
school and community?
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to communicate through
oral, written, and digital
means with the larger
organizational, community,
and political contexts
when advocating for the
needs of their school and
community.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) develop a plan for
identifying and
accessing resources,
2) gather information
about the district and
policy context,
3) develop targeted
communication for oral,
written, and digital
distribution, and
4) advocate for school and
community needs.
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to communicate through
oral, written, and digital
means with the larger
organizational, community,
and political contexts
when advocating for the
needs of their school and
community.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to develop
a plan that includes the
following:
1) conducting a needs
assessment of the
school and community,
2) identifying and
accessing resources,
3) gathering information
about the district and
policy context,
4) developing targeted
communication for oral,
written, and digital
distribution, and
5) advocating for school
and community needs.
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to communicate through
oral, written, and digital
means with the larger
organizational, community,
and political contexts
when advocating for the
needs of their school and
community.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to develop
a plan that includes the
following:
1) conducting a needs
assessment of the
school and community,
2) identifying and
accessing resources,
3) gathering information
about the district and
policy context,
4) developing targeted
communication for oral,
written, and digital
distribution, and
5) advocating for school
and community needs.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
64
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 6: Operations and Management
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership preparation program understand and
demonstrate the capacity to promote the current and future success and well-being of each student and adult by
applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments necessary to improve management, communication, technology,
school-level governance, and operation systems to develop and improve data-informed and equitable school
resource plans and to apply laws, policies, and regulations.
Standard/Component Approaching Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
Component 6.1 Program
completers understand and
demonstrate the capacity
to evaluate, develop, and
implement management,
communication,
technology, school-level
governance, and operation
systems that support each
student’s learning needs
and promote the mission
and vision of the school.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding
and capacity to
evaluate, develop, and
implement management,
communication,
technology, school-level
governance, and operation
systems that support each
student’s learning needs
and promote the mission
and vision of the school?
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to evaluate, develop, and
implement management,
communication,
technology, school-level
governance, and operation
systems.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) audit the equity of
school processes and
operations and their
impact on resource
allocation, personnel
decisions, and students’
experiences and
outcomes,
2) analyze and identify
strategic and tactical
challenges for the
school’s systems,
3) develop and implement
management,
communication,
assessment,
technology, school-
level governance, and
operation systems, and
4) develop a school’s
master schedule.
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to evaluate, develop, and
implement management,
communication,
technology, school-level
governance, and operation
systems.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to develop a
plan to:
1) audit the equity of
school processes and
operations and their
impact on resource
allocation, personnel
decisions, and students’
experiences and
outcomes,
2) analyze and identify
strategic and tactical
challenges for the
school’s systems,
3) develop and implement
management,
communication,
assessment,
technology, school-
level governance, and
operation systems, and
4) develop a school’s
master schedule.
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to evaluate, develop, and
implement management,
communication,
technology, school-level
governance, and operation
systems.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to develop a
plan to:
1) audit the equity of
school processes and
operations and their
impact on resource
allocation, personnel
decisions, and students’
experiences and
outcomes,
2) analyze and identify
strategic and tactical
challenges for the
school’s systems,
3) develop and implement
management,
communication,
assessment,
technology, school-
level governance, and
operation systems, and
4) develop a school’s
master schedule.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
65
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 6.2 Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to evaluate,
develop, and advocate
for a data-informed and
equitable resourcing
plan that supports school
improvement and student
development.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to evaluate,
develop, and advocate
for a data-informed and
equitable resourcing
plan that supports school
improvement and student
development?
Candidates understand
the importance of
and how to evaluate,
develop, and advocate
for a data-informed and
equitable resourcing
plan that supports school
improvement and student
development.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) evaluate resource
needs,
2) use data ethically and
equitably to develop a
multi-year resourcing
plan aligned to school
goals and priorities,
and
3) advocate for resources
in support of needs.
Candidates understand
the importance of
and how to evaluate,
develop, and advocate
for a data-informed and
equitable resourcing
plan that supports school
improvement and student
development.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to develop a
plan to:
1) evaluate resource
needs,
2) use data ethically and
equitably to a develop
a multi-year resourcing
plan aligned to school
goals and priorities,
and
3) advocate for resources
in support of needs.
Candidates understand
the importance of
and how to evaluate,
develop and advocate
for a data-informed and
equitable resourcing
plan that supports school
improvement and student
development.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to develop a
plan to:
1) evaluate resource
needs,
2) use data ethically and
equitably to develop a
multi-year resourcing
plan aligned to school
goals and priorities,
and
3) advocate for resources
in support of needs.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
66
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 6.3 Program
completers understand and
demonstrate the capacity
to reflectively evaluate,
communicate about, and
implement laws, rights,
policies, and regulations to
promote student and adult
success and well-being.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to reflectively
evaluate, communicate
about, and implement
laws, rights, policies, and
regulations to promote
student and adult success
and well-being?
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to reflectively evaluate,
communicate about, and
implement laws, rights,
policies, and regulations to
promote student and adult
success and well-being.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) reflectively evaluate
situations and policies
with regard to legal,
ethical, and equity
issues,
2) analyze how law and
policy are applied
consistently, fairly,
equitably, and ethically
within a school,
3) communicate policies,
laws, regulations,
and procedures to
appropriate school
stakeholders, and
4) monitor and ensure
adherence to laws,
rights, policies, and
regulations.
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to reflectively evaluate,
communicate about, and
implement laws, rights,
policies, and regulations to
promote student and adult
success and well-being.
Candidates reflectively
evaluate situations and
policies with regard to
legal, ethical, and equity
issues.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to develop a
plan to:
1) analyze how law and
policy are applied
consistently, fairly,
equitably, and ethically
within a school,
2) communicate policies,
laws, regulations,
and procedures to
appropriate school
stakeholders, and
3) monitor and ensure
adherence to laws,
rights, policies, and
regulations.
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to reflectively evaluate,
communicate about, and
implement laws, rights,
policies, and regulations to
promote student and adult
success and well-being.
Candidates reflectively
evaluate situations and
policies with regard to
legal, ethical, and equity
issues.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to develop a
plan to:
1) analyze how law and
policy are applied
consistently, fairly,
equitably, and ethically
within a school,
2) communicate policies,
laws, regulations,
and procedures to
appropriate school
stakeholders, and
3) monitor and ensure
adherence to laws,
rights, policies, and
regulations.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
67
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 7: Building Professional Capacity
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership preparation program understand
and demonstrate the capacity to promote the current and future success and well-being of each student and adult
by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments necessary to build the school’s professional capacity, engage
staff in the development of a collaborative professional culture, and improve systems of staff supervision, evaluation,
support, and professional learning.
Standard/Component Approaching Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
Component 7.1 Program
completers understand
and have the capacity to
collaboratively develop
the school’s professional
capacity through
engagement in recruiting,
selecting, and hiring staff.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to collaboratively
develop the school’s
professional capacity
through engagement in
recruiting, selecting, and
hiring staff?
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to develop the school’s
professional capacity
through engagement in
recruiting, selecting, and
hiring staff.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) evaluate a school’s
professional staff
capacity needs,
2) use research and data
to plan and engage in
candidate recruitment
and selection that
reflects the diversity of
the student body, and
3) evaluate applicant
materials.
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to develop the school’s
professional capacity
through engagement in
recruiting, selecting, and
hiring staff.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) evaluate a school’s
professional staff
capacity needs,
2) collect and use data
to plan candidate
recruitment and
selection that reflects
the diversity of a
school’s student body,
and
3) develop a strategy for
evaluating applicant
materials.
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to develop the school’s
professional capacity
through engagement in
recruiting, selecting, and
hiring staff.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) evaluate a school’s
professional staff
capacity needs,
2) collect and use data
to plan candidate
recruitment and
selection that reflects
the diversity of a
school’s student body,
and
3) develop a strategy for
evaluating applicant
materials.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
68
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 7.2 Program
completers understand
and have the capacity
to develop and engage
staff in a collaborative
professional culture
designed to promote
school improvement,
teacher retention, and the
success and well-being of
each student and adult in
the school.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to develop
and engage staff in a
collaborative professional
culture designed
to promote school
improvement, teacher
retention, and the success
and well-being of each
student and adult in the
school?
Candidates understand
the importance of and
how to engage staff in a
collaborative professional
culture designed
to promote school
improvement, teacher
retention, and the success
and well-being of each
student and adult in the
school.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) develop a
comprehensive plan
for providing school
community members
with a healthy and
positive school building
environment,
2) design and cultivate
a collaborative
professional culture,
and
3) model and
foster effective
communication.
Candidates understand
the importance of and
how to engage staff in a
collaborative professional
culture designed
to promote school
improvement, teacher
retention, and the success
and well-being of each
student and adult in the
school.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) develop a
comprehensive plan
for providing school
community members
with a healthy and
positive school building
environment,
2) design a collaborative
professional culture,
and
3) develop a process
for modeling and
fostering effective
communication.
Candidates understand
the importance of and
how to engage staff in a
collaborative professional
culture designed
to promote school
improvement, teacher
retention, and the success
and well-being of each
student and adult in the
school.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) develop a
comprehensive plan
for providing school
community members
with a healthy and
positive school building
environment,
2) design a collaborative
professional culture,
and
3) develop a process
for modeling and
fostering effective
communication.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
69
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 7.3 Program
completers understand
and have the capacity
to personally engage in,
as well as collaboratively
engage school staff in,
professional learning
designed to promote
reflection, cultural
responsiveness, distributed
leadership, digital literacy,
school improvement, and
student success.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to personally
engage in, as well as
collaboratively engage
school staff in, professional
learning designed to
promote reflection, cultural
responsiveness, distributed
leadership, digital literacy,
school improvement, and
student success?
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to personally engage in,
as well as collaboratively
engage school staff in,
professional learning
designed to promote
reflection, cultural
responsiveness, distributed
leadership, digital literacy,
school improvement, and
student success.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) evaluate professional
staff capacity needs and
management practices,
2) identify leadership
capabilities of staff,
3) plan opportunities for
professional growth
that promote reflection,
cultural responsiveness,
digital literacy, school
improvement, and
student success,
4) engage staff in
leadership roles, and
5) utilize digital
technology in ethical
and appropriate ways
to foster professional
learning for self and
others.
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to personally engage in,
as well as collaboratively
engage school staff in,
professional learning
designed to promote
reflection, cultural
responsiveness, distributed
leadership, digital literacy,
school improvement, and
student success.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) evaluate professional
staff capacity needs and
management practices,
2) identify leadership
capabilities of staff,
3) plan opportunities for
professional growth
that promote reflection,
cultural responsiveness,
digital literacy, school
improvement, and
student success,
4) plan opportunities
for engaging staff in
leadership roles, and
5) develop a plan
for utilizing digital
technology in ethical
and appropriate ways
to foster professional
learning for self and
others.
Candidates understand
the importance of and how
to personally engage in,
as well as collaboratively
engage school staff in,
professional learning
designed to promote
reflection, cultural
responsiveness, distributed
leadership, digital literacy,
school improvement, and
student success.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) evaluate professional
staff capacity needs and
management practices,
2) identify leadership
capabilities of staff,
3) plan opportunities for
professional growth
that promote reflection,
cultural responsiveness,
digital literacy, school
improvement, and
student success,
4) plan opportunities
for engaging staff in
leadership roles, and
5) develop a plan
for utilizing digital
technology in ethical
and appropriate ways
to foster professional
learning for self and
others.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
70
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 7.4 Program
completers understand
and have the capacity
to evaluate, develop,
and implement systems
of supervision, support,
and evaluation designed
to promote school
improvement and student
success.
Key question: How do
candidates demonstrate
their understanding and
capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement
systems of supervision,
support, and evaluation
designed to promote
school improvement and
student success?
Candidates understand
the importance of and
how to evaluate, develop,
and implement systems
of supervision, support,
and evaluation designed
to promote school
improvement and student
success.
Candidates do not
demonstrate the capacity to:
1) observe teaching in a
variety of classrooms,
2) gather and review
district policies
on instructional
expectations,
3) provide teaching
staff with actionable
feedback to support
improvement, and
4) develop a system for
monitoring whether
supervision and
evaluation strategies
promote improvement.
Candidates understand
the importance of and
how to evaluate, develop,
and implement systems
of supervision, support,
and evaluation designed
to promote school
improvement and student
success.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) observe teaching in a
variety of classrooms,
2) gather and analyze
district policies
on instructional
expectations,
3) provide teaching
staff with actionable
feedback to support
improvement, and
4) develop a system for
monitoring whether
supervision and
evaluation strategies
promote improvement.
Candidates understand
the importance of and
how to evaluate, develop,
and implement systems
of supervision, support,
and evaluation designed
to promote school
improvement and student
success.
Candidates demonstrate
the capacity to:
1) observe teaching in a
variety of classrooms,
2) gather and analyze
district policies
on instructional
expectations,
3) provide teaching
staff with actionable
feedback to support
improvement, and
4) develop a system for
monitoring whether
supervision and
evaluation strategies
promote improvement.
Candidates use their
understanding and
capacity to undertake and
implement this work within
a school setting.
71
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Policy Regarding NELP Program Report Recognition Decisions
All program reports go through a three-step review process: (1) SPA program review, (2) SPA
audit, and (3) CAEP tech review. SPA review and audit team members must be professionals
active in educational leadership organizations or institutions of higher education who are trained
and qualified by the NELP SPA coordinator. The CAEP tech review is conducted by CAEP
headquarters staff.
SPA AUDIT TEAM
CAEP TECHNICAL
REVIEW
AUDITORS
REVIEWER
REVIEWER
CAEP TECH
REVIEW
SPA REVIEW TEAM
LEAD
REVIEWER
SPA
COORDINATOR
NELP program reviewers and Audit Committee members will evaluate the “preponderance
of evidence” presented in the program report to determine whether to grant “National
Recognition,” “National Recognition with Conditions,” or “Further Development Required/
Recognized with Probation.” “‘Preponderance of evidence’ means an overall confirmation that
candidates meet standards in the strength, weight, or quality of evidence” CAEP, 2017, p. 28).
NELP program review decisions are based on the preponderance of evidence at the standard
level using this definition. Specifically, 75 percent of the components of each standard must be
met at the acceptable or target level.
Programs are required to submit two applications of data for each assessment in the initial
report, and each standard must be represented in the two applications of data. That is, the
assessment must be administered and data collected at least two times. The data must be
aggregated to the standard level. Programs may submit aggregate data by component to
better make their case, but that is not required. This means that a standard could be met even
though evidence related to one or more components presented across the assessments is
weak. Program reviewers will weigh the evidence presented in the NELP program reports, and
when there is a greater weight of evidence (75 percent or more) in favor, they will conclude
that a standard is met or that a program is recognized. “This will be based on the professional
judgments of the SPA reviewer teams” (CAEP, 2017, p. 28).
72
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Initial Program Report Decision Choices
Programs that are going through review for the first time have three opportunities to submit
reports before a final recognition decision is applied. This allows programs the opportunity to
receive feedback, collaborate with NELP, and make changes in their programs without being
penalized with a “Not Recognized” decision. A program that is being evaluated for the first time
will receive one of the following three NELP program report decisions:
a. National Recognition
• The program substantially meets all NELP standards 1–8.
• No further submission required; program will receive full National Recognition.
• Program will be listed on the CAEP website as Nationally Recognized.
b. National Recognition with Conditions
• The program substantially meets some but not all NELP standards; therefore, a
“Response to Conditions” report must be submitted within 24 months to remove the
conditions. Conditions could include one or more of the following:
o insufficient amount of data to determine if NELP standards are met;
o insufficient alignment among NELP standards or assessments or scoring guides or
data (see NELP standard evaluation rubric); or
o lack of quality in some assessments or scoring guides.
• The program has two opportunities within 24 months after the decision to remove the
conditions. If the program is unsuccessful after two attempts, then the program status
will be changed to Not Recognized.
• The program is listed on the CAEP website as Nationally Recognized with Conditions
until it achieves National Recognition. If its status is changed to Not Recognized, then
the program will be removed from the list on the website.
c. Further Development Required
• The program does not provide evidence that at least 75 percent of the components of
each NELP standard are met, and the NELP standards that are not met are critical to a
high-quality program; therefore, recognition is not appropriate.
• The program will have two opportunities within 12 to 14 months after the first decision
to attain National Recognition or National Recognition with Conditions. If the program is
unsuccessful after two attempts, then the program status will be changed to Not Recognized.
A program could receive a decision of Not Nationally Recognized only after two submissions
within the 12- to 14-month period (from the first decision) were unsuccessful in achieving National
Recognition or National Recognition with Conditions.
73
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Program Report Decision Choices for a Currently Recognized Program
Program reports that were previously approved by NELP during a previous review cycle will not be
in jeopardy of losing their recognition status immediately after their first review in a review cycle.
These programs will receive one of the following NELP program report decisions.
a. Continued National Recognition
• The program substantially meets all NELP standards 1–8.
• No further submission required.
• Program is listed on the CAEP website as Nationally Recognized.
b. Continued National Recognition with Conditions
• The program generally meets some but not all NELP standards; therefore, a “Response
to Conditions” report must be submitted within 18 months to remove the conditions.
Conditions could include one or more of the following:
o insufficient amount of assessment data to determine if NELP standards are met;
o insufficient alignment among NELP standards or assessments or scoring guides or
data (see NELP standard evaluation rubric); or
o lack of quality in some assessments or scoring guides.
• The program will have two opportunities within 18 months after the first decision to
attain National Recognition. If the program is unsuccessful after two attempts, then the
program status will be changed to Not Recognized.
• The program is listed on the CAEP website as Nationally Recognized (based on its prior
review) until the Accreditation Council makes an accreditation decision for the unit. At
that point, if the program has not achieved National Recognition with Conditions or
National Recognition, its status is changed to Not Recognized and the program’s name
will be removed from the website.
c. Continued National Recognition with Probation
• The program does not substantially meet all NELP standards, and the NELP standards
that are not met are critical to a high-quality program and more than a few in number or
are few in number but so fundamentally important that recognition is not appropriate.
To remove probation, the unit may submit a revised program report addressing unmet
standards within 12 to 14 months, or the unit may submit a new program report for
national recognition within 12 to 14 months.
• The program will have two opportunities within 12 to 14 months after the first
decision to attain National Recognition or National Recognition with Conditions. If the
program is unsuccessful after two attempts, then the program status will be changed
to Not Recognized.
74
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
• The program is listed on the CAEP website as Nationally Recognized (based on its prior
review) until the Accreditation Council makes an accreditation decision for the unit. At
that point, if the program is still Recognized with Probation, its status is changed to Not
Recognized and the program’s name will be removed from the website.
A program could only receive a decision of Not Nationally Recognized after two submissions within
the 12- to 14-month period (from the first decision) were unsuccessful in reaching either National
Recognition or Continued National Recognition with Conditions.
75
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Appendix 2: Alignment of NELP Program Standards
with CAEP Principles
The four CAEP principles place student learning at the center of the educational enterprise (CAEP,
2017) and assert that “student learning must be the focus of standards and preparation for teachers
and for other school professionals” (p. 11). The principles outline the knowledge and skills that
beginning teachers must possess to fulfill their professional and ethical responsibilities to students
in the classroom. Building-level leaders also focus on student learning, though their influence on
student learning is through their development of others, particularly teachers, as well as through
their leadership of the school’s vision and learning environment. Thus, in addition to meeting their
personal obligations to their profession, building-level school leaders have the added responsibility
of ensuring that all classroom teachers, as well as the other staff members who work with students,
are fluent in the CAEP principles. It is the building-level leaders’ responsibility to ensure that
educators know about learners and learning and that educators working with students know their
content area and know how to instruct students and assess their progress. Finally, building-level
leaders play a major role in ensuring that educators meet their professional responsibilities.
76
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
The table below outlines how the NELP standards for building-level leaders align to the four CAEP
principles.
CAEP Principles Advance Program Standards
Principle A: The Learner and
Learning
In addition to knowledge about students’ development and the
school conditions that maximize student learning, building-level
leaders must also engage students’ families and ensure that students
receive instruction in culturally responsive ways. Building leaders bear
the primary responsibility for addressing equity issues and leading
staff members and students’ families to ensure that the learning
environments in which students are immersed represent student
differences and community values. The following four NELP building-
level standards address principle A.
Standard 1: Mission, Vision, and Improvement—Candidates
who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership
preparation program understand and demonstrate the capacity
to promote the current and future success and well-being of
each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to collaboratively lead, design, and
implement a school mission, vision, and process for continuous
improvement that reflects a core set of values and priorities.
Standard 3: Equity, Inclusiveness, and Cultural Responsiveness—
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational
leadership preparation program understand and demonstrate the
capacity to promote the current and future success and well-being
of each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to develop and maintain a supportive,
equitable, culturally responsive, and inclusive school culture.
Standard 4: Learning and Instruction—Candidates who successfully
complete a building-level educational leadership preparation
program understand and demonstrate the capacity to promote the
current and future success and well-being of each student and adult
by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments necessary to
evaluate, develop, and implement coherent systems of curriculum,
instruction, supports, and assessment.
Standard 5: Community and External Leadership—Candidates
who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership
preparation program understand and demonstrate the capacity
to promote the current and future success and well-being of each
student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments
necessary to engage families, the community, and school personnel in
order to strengthen student learning, support school improvement, and
advocate for the needs of their school and community.
77
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Principle B: Content
As is pointed out in the CAEP document Guidelines on Program
Review with National Recognition Using Specialized Professional
Association (SPA) Standards, the term “content knowledge” has
two meanings. “Content knowledge” refers to the subject matter
of a discipline and to the professional field of study. As building-
level leaders, professionals must be able to address both of types
of content. Building leaders must help others provide instruction in
subject matter disciplines that is accurate and to which students are
given access through effective pedagogy. During their preparation,
building-level leaders must acquire the leadership knowledge
outlined in the seven standards outlined in the NELP standards and
accompanying components. The following seven NELP building-level
standards address principle B.
Standard 1: Mission, Vision, and Improvement—Candidates
who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership
preparation program understand and demonstrate the capacity
to promote the current and future success and well-being of
each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to collaboratively lead, design, and
implement a school mission, vision, and process for continuous
improvement that reflects a core set of values and priorities.
Standard 2: Ethics and Professional Norms—
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational
leadership preparation program understand and demonstrate the
capacity to promote the current and future success and well-being
of each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to understand and demonstrate the capacity
to advocate for ethical decisions and cultivate and enact professional
norms.
Standard 3: Equity, Inclusiveness, and Cultural Responsiveness—
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational
leadership preparation program understand and demonstrate the
capacity to promote the current and future success and well-being
of each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to develop and maintain a supportive,
equitable, culturally responsive, and inclusive school culture.
Standard 4: Learning and Instruction—Candidates who successfully
complete a building-level educational leadership preparation
program understand and demonstrate the capacity to promote the
current and future success and well-being of each student and adult
by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments necessary to
evaluate, develop, and implement coherent systems of curriculum,
instruction, supports, and assessment.
78
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 5: Community and External Leadership—Candidates
who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership
preparation program understand and demonstrate the capacity
to promote the current and future success and well-being of
each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to engage families, the community, and
school personnel in order to strengthen student learning, support
school improvement, and advocate for the needs of their school and
community.
Standard 6: Operations and Management—Candidates who
successfully complete a building-level educational leadership
preparation program understand and demonstrate the capacity
to promote the current and future success and well-being of
each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to improve management, communication,
technology, school-level governance, and operation systems to
develop and improve school resource plans and to apply laws,
policies, and regulations.
Standard 7: Building Professional Capacity—Candidates who
successfully complete a building-level educational leadership
preparation program understand and demonstrate the capacity
to promote the current and future success and well-being of
each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to build the school’s professional capacity;
engage staff in the development of a collaborative professional
culture; and improve systems of staff supervision, evaluation, support,
and professional learning.
79
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Principle C: Instructional
Practice
Candidates preparing for building-level leadership positions must apply
the knowledge outlined in the seven NELP standards for building-
level leaders. Two of the most important aspects of building-level
leaders’ work are the ability to monitor and improve the instruction that
students receive and the ability to use assessment to benefit individual
students and for charting improvements to curriculum and instruction.
For principle C, building-level leaders have the dual responsibilities of
knowing effective instructional and assessment practices as well as how
to lead others in assessing and refining their expertise in these areas.
The following four NELP building-level standards address principle C.
Standard 1: Mission, Vision, and Improvement—Candidates
who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership
preparation program understand and demonstrate the capacity
to promote the current and future success and well-being of
each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to collaboratively lead, design, and
implement a school mission, vision, and process for continuous
improvement that reflects a core set of values and priorities.
Standard 3: Equity, Inclusiveness, and Cultural Responsiveness—
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational
leadership preparation program understand and demonstrate the
capacity to promote the current and future success and well-being
of each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to develop and maintain a supportive,
equitable, culturally responsive, and inclusive school culture.
Standard 4: Learning and Instruction—Candidates who successfully
complete a building-level educational leadership preparation
program understand and demonstrate the capacity to promote the
current and future success and well-being of each student and adult
by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments necessary to
evaluate, develop, and implement coherent systems of curriculum,
instruction, supports, and assessment.
Standard 7: Building Professional Capacity—Candidates who
successfully complete a building-level educational leadership
preparation program understand and demonstrate the capacity
to promote the current and future success and well-being of
each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to build the school’s professional capacity;
engage staff in the development of a collaborative professional
culture; and improve systems of staff supervision, evaluation, support,
and professional learning.
80
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Principle D: Professional
Responsibility
Building-level leaders must engage in their own professional learning,
ethical practice, and collaboration while developing systems that
ensure that others working with students also fulfill their professional
responsibilities. The NELP standards for building-level leaders
provide candidates with a knowledge base that provides direction for
their professional responsibilities and for helping others fulfill their
professional responsibilities. The standards address the building-
level leaders’ roles in collaboratively developing a school mission
that reflects the culture and values of the community. The standards
also focus on assessing and continually improving curricula and
the systems of instruction and assessment through which students
engage the curriculum. The following seven NELP building-level
standards address principle D.
Standard 1: Mission, Vision, and Improvement—Candidates
who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership
preparation program understand and demonstrate the capacity
to promote the current and future success and well-being of
each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to collaboratively lead, design, and
implement a school mission, vision, and process for continuous
improvement that reflects a core set of values and priorities.
Standard 2: Ethics and Professional Norms—Candidates who
successfully complete a building-level educational leadership
preparation program understand and demonstrate the capacity
to promote the current and future success and well-being of
each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to understand and demonstrate the
capacity to advocate for ethical decisions and cultivate and enact
professional norms.
Standard 3: Equity, Inclusiveness, and Cultural Responsiveness—
Candidates who successfully complete a building-level educational
leadership preparation program understand and demonstrate the
capacity to promote the current and future success and well-being
of each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to develop and maintain a supportive,
equitable, culturally responsive, and inclusive school culture.
Standard 4: Learning and Instruction—Candidates who successfully
complete a building-level educational leadership preparation
program understand and demonstrate the capacity to promote the
current and future success and well-being of each student and adult
by applying the knowledge, skills, and commitments necessary to
evaluate, develop, and implement coherent systems of curriculum,
instruction, supports, and assessment.
81
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Standard 5: Community and External Leadership—Candidates
who successfully complete a building-level educational leadership
preparation program understand and demonstrate the capacity
to promote the current and future success and well-being of
each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to engage families, the community, and
school personnel in order to strengthen student learning, support
school improvement, and advocate for the needs of their school and
community.
Standard 6: Operations and Management—Candidates who
successfully complete a building-level educational leadership
preparation program understand and demonstrate the capacity
to promote the current and future success and well-being of
each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to improve management, communication,
technology, school-level governance, and operation systems to
develop and improve school resource plans and to apply laws,
policies, and regulations.
Standard 7: Building Professional Capacity—Candidates who
successfully complete a building-level educational leadership
preparation program understand and demonstrate the capacity
to promote the current and future success and well-being of
each student and adult by applying the knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to build the school’s professional capacity;
engage staff in the development of a collaborative professional
culture; and improve systems of staff supervision, evaluation, support,
and professional learning.
82
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Appendix 3: Research Support for Standards
The research shared in this appendix to the NELP building-level standards is based on a review of
school leadership research supporting each of the NELP standards. This database represents an effort
to be inclusive of a wide range of studies, with a focus on work published since 2000. These sources
were culled by searching the EBSCOhost academic education database, available through a public
university, and Google Scholar for key search terms, which included overarching terms such as “school
leadership” and “school effectiveness” as well as specific topics such as “cultural responsiveness” or
“school vision.” In addition, the following publications were used to identify sources: (a) The Research
Base Supporting the ELCC Standards: Grounding Leadership Preparation Educational Leadership
Constituent Council Standards in Empirical Research Educational Leadership Program Standards (Eds.
Young & Mawhinney et al., 2011) and (b) Evidence Supporting the 2016 Revision of the Education
Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) 2011(Tucker, Anderson, Reynolds, & Mawhinney, 2016). The
first source is a book that accompanied the 2011 version (ELCC) of the current leadership preparation
program standards (NELP), which provided the research background for the standards. The second
study was commissioned as part of the standards revision process, published as a part of a special issue
of the Journal for Research in Educational Leadership and sought to update the research base with
studies published between 2008 and 2013. This search yielded a reference list with 261 sources.
Each source was coded by standard and component and the nature of the evidence, using NVivo 11.3
data analysis software. The complete database is available online at http://www.ucea.org/resource_
category/preparation/. The database includes a total of 521 references, with some studies addressing
multiple aspects of school leadership or addressing the majority of the components within a standard.
Whenever possible, the abstract was coded for each source, but when the abstract included insufficient
evidence of the methods or findings, the complete article was coded.
The nature of the evidence was determined by the connections made between the school conditions
addressed in the standards and the knowledge, skills, and actions of the school leader. There were
three different types of evidence: direct evidence of the need for the standard, indirect evidence of the
need for the standard, and evidence related to the need for the standard. The definitions are as follows:
1. Direct evidence of the need for the standard:
a. The study connected leadership behavior(s) either directly or indirectly to a school- or
student-level outcome (i.e., student achievement, professional engagement, student
motivation, improvement, etc.).
2. Indirect evidence of the need for the standard:
a. The study connected a school-level variable that has been linked to leadership (i.e.,
teacher quality, school climate) to a school-level outcome, or
b. The study provided specific detail about the relationship between leadership and a
school- or student-level variable but does not make any claims directly or indirectly
about a school- or student-level outcome.
83
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
3. Evidence related to the need for the standard:
a. The study connected to the theme of a standard but does not necessarily make any
claims about the relationship between the school leader and that theme, or
b. The study dealt with an intended school- or student-level outcome variable but does
not explicitly mention the role of the school leader or a school-level variable that has
been linked to leadership.
Each type of support (direct, indirect, and related) included quantitative, qualitative, mixed
methods, and conceptual studies.
Table 1
Database sources by research methods and nature of the evidence
Direct Indirect Related Total
Standard 1 27 29 21 77
Standard 2 31 29 9 69
Standard 3 40 25 37 102
Standard 4 22 30 19 71
Standard 5 22 31 34 87
Standard 6 10 13 17 40
Standard 7 31 43 19 93
Standard 8 4 14 15 33
Total 187 214 171 572
Note: For more information on the evidence provided here, see the NELP Standards Building-Level Database
of Evidence.
Support for the Standards
The two standards with the most support, including the most direct evidence, were standard
7 (Building Professional Capacity) and standard 1 (Mission, Vision, and Improvement).
The next most supported standard was standard 3 (Equity, Inclusiveness, and Cultural
Responsiveness). These standards all had strong direct evidence. Standard 5 (Community
and External Leadership) had somewhat strong evidence, followed by two standards
with moderate support, standard 4 (Learning and Instruction) and standard 2 (Ethics and
Professional Norms). Standard 6 (Operations and Management) had the least amount of
evidence, including limited direct evidence.
The following sections include a synthesis of a select sample of evidence, primarily evidence
that directly links leaders to the area(s) of school effectiveness or improvement found in each
standard. At the end of each section, a table provides additional indirect and related citations.
84
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Research Support for Standard 1: Mission, Vision, and Improvement
Standard 1 includes two components focused on the knowledge, skills, and commitments a
leader needs to collaboratively lead, design, and implement a school mission, vision, and process
for continuous improvement that reflects a core set of values and priorities that include data,
technology, equity, diversity, digital citizenship, and community. Many studies have explored the
influence of transformative leadership on school effectiveness (Drago-Severson, 2012; Finnigan,
2012; Kose, 2009; Price, 2012; Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2009; Louis et al., 2010). An essential
feature of transformational leadership is the capacity to lead, advocate for, and implement a
mission, vision, and strategic plan that supports school effectiveness and continuous school
improvement (Dexter, Richardson & Nash, 2017; Geijsel, Sleegers, Leithwood, & Jantzi, 2003; Kose,
2011; Kurland, Peretz, & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2010; Mitchell & Sackney, 2006; Murphy & Torre, 2014;
Penuel, Riel, Joshi, Pearlman, Kim, & Frank, 2010; Printy, & Marks, 2006; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe,
2008; Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, & Geijsel, 2011; Valentine & Prater, 2011).
Component 1.1 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
collaboratively evaluate, develop, and communicate a school mission and vision designed to
reflect a core set of values and priorities that include data use, technology, equity, diversity,
digital citizenship and community.” This vision should be developed collaboratively with key
stakeholders (Penuel et al., 2010; Finnigan & Daly, 2012) and should be informed by data (Eilers
& Camancho, 2007; Halverson, 2010; Halverson, Pritchett, & Watson, 2007). It is important that
the school leader ensures the school’s mission, vision, and goals are aligned with a set of core
values, which emphasize important aspects of the school’s culture, such as equity, democracy,
diversity, inclusiveness, community, commitment, and trust (Gurr, Drysdale, & Mulford, 2006;
Hallinger, 2005; Kirby & DiPaola, 2011; Mitchell & Sackney, 2006; Printy & Marks, 2006;
Scanlan & Lopez, 2012; Thoonen et al., 2011; Tschannen-Moran, 2009; Youngs & King, 2002).
In pursuance of the mission and vision and aligned with core values, the school leader must
collaborate with staff, families, and other members of the school community to design and
monitor coherent and complementary systems of academic and social supports and services
(Bruggencate, Luyten, Scheerens, & Sleegers, 2012; Dexter, et al., 2017; Penuel et al., 2010;
Printy & Marks, 2006; Tschannen-Moran, 2009).
Component 1.2 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to lead
improvement processes that include data use, design, implementation, and evaluation.” School
leaders must be able to lead change by working with staff and the school community to implement
and evaluate a continuous, responsive, sustainable school improvement process focused on
improving learning opportunities (Duke & Salmonowicz, 2010; Datnow & Castellano, 2001; Geijsel
et al., 2003; Gerard, Bowyer, & Linn, 2008; Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger & Heck, 2011; Klar & Brewer,
2013; Silins & Mulford, 2002, 2004; Tschannen-Moran, 2009). This improvement process should
be done collaboratively (Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Murphy & Meyers, 2009;
Timar & Chyu, 2010) and should be constantly monitored (Halverson, 2010; Levin & Datnow, 2012;
Marsh, 2012; Wayman & Stringfield, 2006; Wohlsetter, Datnow, & Park, 2008).
85
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
The following table shows the breakdown of support for this standard.
Table 2
Evidence for standard 1 by component and type of evidence
Direct Indirect Related Total
C1.1: Mission and vision that reflects
a core set of values and priorities
23 12 9 44
C1.2: Lead improvement processes 4 17 12 33
Total 27 29 21 77
Note: For more information on the evidence provided here, see the NELP Standards Building-Level Database
of Evidence.
Research Support for Standard 2: Ethics and Professional Norms
Standard 2 includes three components focused on the knowledge, skills, and commitments a leader
needs to understand and demonstrate the capacity to advocate for ethical decisions and cultivate
and enact professional dispositions and norms. School leaders must ensure that ethical values and
norms guide decision making and other leadership behaviors to ensure the well-being of students
(Begley, 2006; Frick, 2011; Frick, Faircloth, & Little, 2013; Kearney, Kelsey, & Herrington, 2013; Louis et
al., 2010; Riehl, 2008; Shields, 2004, 2010; Theoharis & Haddix, 2011; Walker & Shuangye, 2007).
Component 2.1 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to reflect on,
communicate about, cultivate, and model professional dispositions and norms (e.g., fairness, integrity,
transparency, trust, collaboration, perseverance, reflection, lifelong learning, digital citizenship) that
support the educational success and well-being of each student and adult.” An important aspect of
ethical leadership is developing the capacity to enact the professional norms of integrity, fairness,
transparency, trust, digital citizenship, collaboration, perseverance, self-awareness, reflection, lifelong
learning, and continuous improvement in their actions, decision making, management of resources,
and relationships with others (Auerbach, 2009; Cooper, 2009; Goddard, Goddard, Kim, & Miller,
2015; Gurr et al., 2006; Price, 2012; Sanzo, Sherman, & Clayton, 2011; Scanlan & Lopez, 2012; Shelden,
Angell, Stoner, & Roseland, 2010; Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Youngs & King, 2002). In order to promote
these cultural norms, leaders must engage in reflective practice and model those norms (Auberbach,
2009; Cooper, 2009; Gurr et al., 2006; Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Leaders must also be able to
cultivate, communicate, and uphold these norms within and among diverse stakeholder groups,
addressing potential conflicts between individual and group rights in their decision-making processes
(Cooper, 2009; Gurr et al., 2006; Shelden et al., 2010).
Component 2.2 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
evaluate, communicate about, and advocate for ethical and legal decisions.” They must also
use professional judgment to consider ethical dilemmas, moral and legal consequences, and
86
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
stewardship of the school’s resources (Cooper, 2009; Frick, 2011; Frick, Faircloth, & Little, 2013).
Leaders should also serve as advocates for the needs of all students (Good, 2008).
Component 2.3 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to model ethical
behavior in their personal conduct and relationships and to cultivate ethical behavior in others.” School
leaders must model ethical behavior in their personal conduct, relationships with others, and responses to
unethical or unprofessional actions (Barnett & McCormick, 2004; Begley, 2006; Cooper, 2009; Gurr et al.,
2006; Kerney, Kelsey, & Herrington, 2013; Price, 2012; Sanzo et al., 2011). The leader must also expect and
support ethical behavior from staff and students (Cooper, 2009; Mitchell & Sackney, 2006; Price, 2012).
The following table shows the breakdown of support for this standard.
Table 3
Evidence for standard 2 by component and type of evidence
Direct Indirect Related Total
C2.1: Professional norms 13 16 5 34
C2.2: Ethical and legal decisions 6 4 1 11
C2.3: Ethical behavior 12 9 3 24
Total 31 29 9 69
Note: For more information on the evidence provided here, see the NELP Standards Building-Level Database
of Evidence.
Research Support for Standard 3: Equity, Inclusiveness, and Cultural Responsiveness
Standard 3 includes three components focused on the knowledge, skills, and commitments a
leader needs to develop and maintain a supportive, equitable, responsive, and inclusive school
culture. In order to ensure this supportive school culture exists, where every student is treated fairly
and respectfully, there must be equitable guidelines, procedures, and decisions (Auerbach, 2009;
Brooks, Adams, & Morita-Mullaney, 2010; Cooper, 2009; McKenzie et al., 2008; Scanlan & Lopez,
2012; Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011).
Component 3.1 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to use data
to evaluate, design, cultivate, and advocate for a supportive and inclusive school culture.” School
leaders are responsible for developing a safe, caring, healthy, inclusive, and responsive school
culture that embraces the belief that all learners can achieve at high levels, fosters supportive
relationships, and monitors and addresses individual and institutional biases to ensure each student
and adult is treated fairly, respectfully, and in a responsive manner (Auerbach, 2009; Barnett &
McCormick, 2004; Gurr et al., 2006; Khalifa, 2010; Kirby & DiPaola, 2011; Lee & Smith, 1999; Louis
et al., 2010; Price, 2012; Robinson et al., 2008; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012).
87
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 3.2 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
evaluate, cultivate, and advocate for equitable access to educational resources, technologies,
and opportunities that support the educational success and well-being of each student.”
In order for all learners to be successful, school leaders must ensure that school structures
are established to ensure an equitable schooling experience (Cooper, 2009; Juettner, 2003;
Louis et al., 2010; Marx & Larson, 2012; McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004; Riehl, 2008; Theoharis,
2007; Theoharis & Haddix, 2011). Leaders must ensure equitable access to effective teachers,
positive relationships with peers and adults, learning opportunities, social and behavioral
support, accommodations and interventions, technology, and other resources necessary for
success (Brooks et al., 2010; Dexter, et al., 2017; McKenzie et al., 2008; Price, 2012; Scanlan &
Lopez, 2012; Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011; Youngs & King, 2002).
Component 3.3 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
evaluate, cultivate, and advocate for equitable, inclusive, and culturally responsive instruction
and behavior support practices among teachers and staff.” Furthermore in order for school
leaders to ensure equity, they must support the development of teachers’ and staff members’
ability to recognize, respect, and employ each student’s strengths, diversity, and culture as
assets for teaching and learning and to recognize and redress biases, marginalization, deficit-
based schooling, and low expectations associated with race, class, culture and language,
gender and sexual orientation, religion, and disability or special status (Auerbach, 2009; Brooks
et al., 2010; Khalifa, 2010; McKenzie et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2008; Scanlan & Lopez, 2012;
Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011; Youngs & King, 2002).
The following table shows the breakdown of support for this standard.
Table 4
Evidence for standard 3 by component and type of evidence
Direct Indirect Related Total
C3.1: Supportive and inclusive school
culture
18 13 18 49
C3.2: Equitable access
10 7 7 24
C3.3: Equitable instructional and
behavior support practices
12 5 12 29
Total 40 25 37 102
Note: For more information on the evidence provided here, see the NELP Standards Building-Level Database
of Evidence.
88
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Research Support for Standard 4: Learning and Instruction
Standard 4 includes four components focused on the knowledge, skills, and commitments a leader
needs to diagnose, develop, implement, and evaluate coherent systems of curriculum, instruction, data
systems, supports, and assessment. Learning and instruction is the technical core of schooling and must
be a central priority for school leaders (Heck & Moriyama, 2010; Louis et al., 2010). School leaders create
the programs and structures that support teaching and learning (Gerard, Bowyer, & Linn, 2008; Marks &
Printy, 2003; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012; Southworth, 2002).
Component 4.1 states, “Program completers understand and can demonstrate the capacity to
evaluate, develop, and implement high-quality, technology-rich curricula programs and other supports
for academic and non-academic student programs.” With regard to well-developed curriculum and
instruction, school leaders must be able to implement curricular resource and support systems that
effectively and efficiently utilize time, technologies, instructional spaces, data, staffing, professional
development, and communication to support equitable access to learning for each student, including
linguistically diverse students and those with special needs (Dexter, et al., 2017; Flanagan & Jacobsen,
2003; Goddard et al., 2015; Libby, Bowyer, & Linn, 2008; Matsumura, Sartoris, Bickel, & Garnier, 2009;
Printy & Marks, 2006; Robinson et al., 2008; Sanzo et al., 2011; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012; Supovitz et
al., 2009; Tschannen-Moran, 2009).
Component 4.2 states, “Program completers understand and can demonstrate the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement high-quality and equitable academic and non-academic instructional practices,
resources, technologies, and services that support equity, digital literacy, and the school’s academic and
non-academic systems.” In addition to a coherent curriculum, a school leader must address instructional
practices by developing the capacity to promote challenging, engaging, and equitable instructional
practice and assessments informed by learning theory and research on special populations, child
development, learning, and effective teaching (Crum & Sherman, 2008; Dexter, et al., 2017; Goddard et
al., 2015; Hallinger, 2005; Lee & Smith, 1999; Louis et al., 2010; McKenzie et al., 2008; Riehl, 2008; Sanzo
et al., 2011; Scanlan & Lopez, 2012).
Component 4.3 states, “Program completers understand and can demonstrate the capacity to
evaluate, develop, and implement formal and informal culturally responsive and accessible assessments
that support data-informed instructional improvement and student learning and well-being.” School
leaders need to be able to support the collection of high-quality data from formative and summative
assessments of student learning (Halverson, 2010; Halverson et al., 2007; Wayman & Stringfield, 2006)
in order to examine how to improve instruction by proposing strategies to address trends in the
assessment data (Levin & Datnow, 2012; Marsh, 2012; Murphy & Meyers, 2009).
Component 4.4 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
collaboratively evaluate, develop, and implement the school’s curriculum, instruction, technology,
data systems, and assessment practices in a coherent, equitable, and systematic manner.” To promote
learning, school leaders must ensure coherent systems of curriculum, instruction, and assessment that
are responsive to student needs, embody high expectations for student learning, align with academic
standards, and promote academic success, career readiness, innovation, and social emotional well-
89
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
being for each student (Lee & Smith, 1999; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). These strategies should
improve coordination and coherence among academic and non-academic systems and should be
designed and implemented with collaboration from faculty (Halverson, 2010; Heck & Moriyama, 2010;
Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001; Robinson et al., 2008; Williams, Atkinson, Cate, & O’Hair,
2008; Youngs & King, 2002).
The following table shows the breakdown of support for this standard.
Table 5
Evidence for standard 4 by component and type of evidence
Direct Indirect Related Total
C4.1: Curricula, technologies,
programs, and other supports
8 12 4 24
C4.2: Academic and non-academic
instructional practices and student services
9 3 5 17
C4.3: Formal and informal assessments 1 9 4 14
C4.4: Systems of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment
4 6 6 16
Total 22 30 19 71
Note: For more information on the evidence provided here, see the NELP Standards Building-Level Database
of Evidence.
Research Support for Standard 5: Community and External Leadership
Standard 5 includes three components focused on developing a leader’s knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to engage families, community, and school personnel in order to strengthen
student learning, support school improvement, and advocate for the needs of their school and
community. For students to be successful, schools must put structures into place and nurture
relationships that engage parents, families, and communities in authentic and meaningful ways
(Auerbach, 2009; Bell, Bolam, & Cubillo, 2003; Duke, Tucker, Salomonowicz, & Levy, 2007; Jeynes,
2005; Louis et al., 2010; Taylor & Pearson, 2004).
Component 5.1 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
collaboratively engage diverse families in strengthening student learning in and out of school.” Research
and practice have established the importance of school leaders developing the capacity to engage with
families to strengthen student learning and the school environment (Adams, Forsyth, & Mitchell, 2009;
Auerbach, 2009; Fan & Chen, 2001; Gordon & Louis, 2009; Jeynes, 2005; Kirby & DiPaola, 2011; Riehl,
2008; Sanders & Harvey, 2002). In the interest of engagement, school leaders should ensure effective
two-way communication with families and collaborate to support student success (Feuerstein, 2000;
Gordon & Louis, 2009; Riehl, 2008; Shelden et al., 2010; Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Taylor & Pearson, 2004;
90
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Young, Rodriguez, & Lee, 2008). Leaders must understand and recognize the assets inherent in the family
culture and community demographics (Barnyak & McNelly, 2009; Ishimaru, 2013; Khalifa, 2012; Young,
Rodriguez, & Lee, 2008) and leverage those assets to ensure parent involvement by being welcoming
and entering into partnerships with families (Sheldon & Epstein, 2002; Sheldon & Van Voorhis, 2004;
Sheldon, Epstein, & Galindo, 2010; Warren, Hong, Rubin, & Uy, 2009).
Component 5.2 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
collaboratively engage and cultivate relationships with diverse community members, partners, and
other constituencies for the benefit of school improvement and student development.” This focus on
engagement and communication with communities should also result in partnerships that access the
cultural, social, intellectual, and political resources of diverse families, communities, and public and
private sectors for the benefit of school improvement and student development (Khalifa, 2010; Riehl,
2008; Sanders & Harvey, 2002; Shelden et al., 2010). Leaders must also openly communicate with
community members (Gordon & Louis, 2009; Riehl, 2008; Shelden et al., 2010; Tschannen-Moran, 2001)
and engage with the community (Khalifa, 2012).
Component 5.3 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
communicate through oral, written, and digital means with the larger organizational, community, and
political contexts when advocating for the needs of their school and community.” School leaders should
also be aware of the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural changes and expectations and,
in light of that understanding, advocate for the needs and priorities of the school, district, students,
families, the community, and the profession (Hoffman, 2009; Khalifa, 2012; Kirby & DiPaola, 2011;
Sanders & Harvey, 2002; Shelden et al., 2010; Theoharis & Haddix, 2011). Leaders must also have open
lines of communication with feeder and connecting schools and the district central office (Gordon
& Louis, 2009; Riehl, 2008; Shelden et al., 2010; Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Furthermore, they should
advocate for school and community needs (Hoffman, 2009; Johnson & Fauske, 2000; Khalifa, 2012).
The following table shows the breakdown of support for this standard.
Table 6
Evidence for standard 5 by component and type of evidence
Direct Indirect Related Total
C5.1: Engage families
8 16 15 39
C5.2: Engage community members,
partners, and other constituencies
8 8 12 28
C5.3: Engage the larger
organizational and policy context
6 7 7 20
Total 22 31 34 87
Note: For more information on the evidence provided here, see the NELP Standards Building-Level Database
of Evidence.
91
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Research Support for Standard 6: Operations and Management
Standard 6 includes three components focused on developing the knowledge, skills, and
commitments a leader needs to improve management, data-use, equity, communication,
technology, school-level governance, and operation systems; develop and improve school resource
plans; and apply laws, policies, and regulations. Organizational management is a set of school
leadership behaviors that have less grounding in research but are known to be essential for running
an effective school (Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Louis et al., 2010).
Component 6.1 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
evaluate, develop, and implement management, communication, technology, school-level
governance, and operation systems that support each student’s learning needs and promote the
mission and vision of the school.” School leaders are responsible for developing and monitoring
school management and operation systems that support each student’s learning needs and
promote the mission and vision of the school (Dexter, et al., 2017; Guramatunhu-Mudiwa &
Scherz, 2013; Halverson et al., 2007; Levin & Datnow, 2012; Marsh, 2012; Mitchell & Sackney, 2006;
Robinson et al., 2008; Wayman & Stringfield, 2006; Youngs & King, 2002).
Component 6.2 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
evaluate, develop, and advocate for a data-informed and equitable resourcing plan that supports
school improvement and student development.” Managing and operating a school has a lot to
do with diagnosing needs and developing a resource plan that meets those needs, including
acquiring and managing fiscal resources, physical resources, technological resources, data, and
other resources; developing and coordinating communication systems that gather and deliver
actionable information for student learning, school improvement, and community engagement;
and enhancing understanding to support student learning, collective professional capacity and
community, and family engagement (Burch, Theorharis, & Rauscher, 2010; Heck & Hallinger, 2014;
Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Ingle, Rutledge, & Bishop, 2011; Louis et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2008;
Youngs & King, 2002).
Component 6.3 states, “Program completers understand and demonstrate the capacity to
reflectively evaluate, communicate about, and implement laws, rights, policies, and regulations
to promote student and adult success and well-being.” School leaders must be able to interpret
applicable laws, rights, policies, and regulations in order to adhere to them and ensure they benefit
the students (Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Louis et al., 2010; Mintrop, 2004; Singh & Al-Fadhli, 2011).
They also serve as policymakers (Nance, 2003) and policy implementers (Conley & Glasman, 2008;
Powell, Higgins, Aram, & Freed, 2009).
92
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
The following table shows the breakdown of support for this standard.
Table 7
Evidence for standard 6 by component and type of evidence
Direct Indirect Related Total
C6.1: School-level governance and
operation systems
5 6 5 16
C6.2: Resourcing plan 3 4 6 13
C6.3: Application of laws, rights,
policies, and regulations
2 3 6 11
Total 10 13 17 40
Note: For more information on the evidence provided here, see the NELP Standards Building-Level Database
of Evidence.
Research Support for Standard 7: Building Professional Capacity
Standard 7 includes four components focused on developing the knowledge, skills, and
commitments a leader needs to engage staff in the development of a collaborative professional
culture, build the school’s professional capacity, and improve systems of staff supervision,
evaluation, support, and professional learning. An important function of a school leader is to
develop the individual and collective professional capacity and community to support student
learning (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003; Crum & Sherman, 2008; Goddard, Neumerski,
Goddard, Salloum, & Berebitsky, 2010; Hallinger, 2005; Kose, 2009; Louis et al., 2010; Price, 2012;
Supovitz et al., 2009; Thoonen et al., 2011).
Component 7.1 states, “Program completers understand and have the capacity to collaboratively
develop the school’s professional capacity through engagement in recruiting, selecting, and hiring
staff.” A managerial component of developing professional capacity is to ensure a system that
recruits, hires, supports, and retains high-quality educational personnel and creates leadership
pathwaysfor effective succession (Cohen-Vogel, 2011; Copland, 2003; Engel, 2013; Fuller, Young &
Baker, 2011; Heck & Hallinger, 2014; Ingle, Rutledge, & Bishop, 2011).
Component 7.2 states, “Program completers understand and have the capacity to develop and
engage staff in a collaborative professional culture designed to promote school improvement,
teacher retention, and the success and well-being of each student and adult in the school.” With
regard to professional learning, school leaders must develop and sustain a positive professional
culture of inquiry, collaboration, innovation, and shared-leadership that empowers school staff with
collective responsibility for enacting professional norms as they collaboratively work to achieve the
school’s shared vision, continuous school improvement, and objectives pertaining to the education
93
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
of the whole child (Bruggencate et al., 2012; Goddard et al., 2015; Hoy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002;
Ishimaru, 2013; Mullen & Hutinger, 2008; Printy, 2008; Robinson et al., 2008; Sanzo et al., 2011;
Tschannen-Moran, 2009; Walker & Slear, 2011).
Component 7.3 states, “Program completers understand and have the capacity to personally
engage in, as well as collaboratively engage school staff in, professional learning designed
to promote reflection, cultural responsiveness, distributed leadership, digital literacy, school
improvement and student success.” In the interest of developing and retaining high-quality
teachers and staff, the school leader must develop workplace conditions that promote employee
leadership, well-being, and professional learning and growth (Brezicha, Bergmark, & Mitra, 2014;
Drago-Severson, 2012; Hoy et al., 2002; Ishimaru, 2013; Matsumura, Sartoris, Bickel, & Garnier,
2009; Mitchell & Sackney, 2006; Mullen & Hutinger, 2008; Printy, 2008; Sanzo et al., 2011; Sebastian
& Allensworth, 2012; Tschannen-Moran, 2009; Walker & Slear, 2011; Youngs & King, 2002).
Component 7.4 states, “Program completers understand and have the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement systems of supervision, support, and evaluation that promote school
improvement and student success.” To ensure the quality of the learning experience, school
leaders must develop research-anchored systems of supervision, support, and evaluation that
provide actionable feedback about instruction and other professional practices, promoting
professional learning, leadership, and commitment to continuous school improvement (Hoy et
al., 2002; Mitchell & Sackney, 2006; Printy, 2008; Robinson et al., 2008; Tschannen-Moran, 2009;
Walker & Slear, 2011; Youngs & King, 2002).
The following table shows the breakdown of support for this standard.
Table 8
Evidence for standard 7 by component and type of evidence
Direct Indirect Related Total
C7.1: Collaborative professional
culture
18 22 5 45
C7.2: Professional capacity 8 6 4 18
C7.3: Collaborative engagement of
staff in professional learning
1 9 4 14
C7.4: Supervision, support, and
evaluation
4 6 6 16
Total 31 43 19 93
Note: For more information on the evidence provided here, see the NELP Standards Building-Level Database
of Evidence.
94
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Research Support for NELP Standard 8: The Internship
Standard 8 includes three components that address the internship under the supervision of
knowledgeable, expert practitioners. The internship should engage candidates in multiple
and diverse school settings and provide them with coherent, authentic, and sustained
opportunities to synthesize and apply the knowledge and skills identified in NELP standards
1–7 in ways that approximate the full range of responsibilities required of building-level leaders
and enable them to promote the current and future success and well-being of each student
and adult in their school. Evidence confirms the importance of a substantial and sustained
educational leadership internship experience that has school-based field experiences and
clinical internship practice within a school setting and monitored by a qualified on-site mentor.
Educator preparation programs typically involve a field component, often referred to as the
internship (Reyes-Guerra & Barnett, 2017). Principals demonstrate better leadership practices
and more satisfaction with their preparation when they have had longer, more full-time
internships (Cordeiro & Sloan, 1996; Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, LaPointe, & Orr, 2009;
Hackmann, Russell, & Elliot, 1999; Orr, King, & LaPointe, 2010; Orr & Orphanos, 2011; Young,
Crow, Murphy, & Ogawa, 2009; Young & Crow, 2017).
Many of the internship components and descriptors of practice in standard 8 parallel the
research findings from Danforth Foundation-funded innovations in leadership preparation in
the early 1990s. The critical components of the field experience identified were (a) exposure
to and engagement in a relevant and realistic range of site responsibilities (8.1); (b) reflective
seminars to support interns’ analysis and integration of learning (8.1); (c) multiple and alternative
internship experiences to support diverse clinical training (8.1); (d) sufficient time on task
(frequency and regularity of work across the school year and day (8.2); (e) support of effective
mentor practitioners (8.3); (g) relationship with mentors who have demonstrated skills and have
been trained as mentors who focus on appropriate modeling and reflection (8.3); and (h) field
supervision, including program coordination by educators who can link district and university
programs and model professional development and learning (8.3) (Milstein & Kruger, 1997).
Component 8.1 states, “Candidates are provided a variety of coherent, authentic field and/or
clinical internship experiences within multiple school environments that afford opportunities to
interact with stakeholders and synthesize and apply the content knowledge and develop and
refine the professional skills articulated in each of the components included inNELP building-
level program standards 1–7.” Research has found that a high-quality internship should provide
the necessary authentic learning experience for becoming a principal. Internships should
give the candidate the responsibilities of leading, facilitating, and making decisions typical
of an educational leader and should develop an educational leader’s perspective on school
improvement (Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, LaPointe, & Orr, 2009; Davis, Darling-Hammond,
Meyerson, & LaPointe, 2005; Leithwood et al., 1996; Orr & Orphanos, 2011; Reyes-Guerra &
Barnett, 2017; Young, et al., 2009; Young & Crow, 2017). The role of the internship should be
to socialize the candidate to the principalship (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Reyes-Guerra &
Barnett, 2017).
95
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 8.2 states, “Candidates are provided a minimum of six months of concentrated (10–15
hours per week) building-level internship or clinical experiences that are authentic leadership
activities within a building setting.” Although there is very little empirical research on the length
and structure of internships, educational experts have argued that ideally the internship is full
time and job-embedded (Barnett, Copland, & Shoho, 2009; Carr, Chenoweth, & Ruhl, 2003;
Reyes-Guerra & Barnett, 2017; Young, et.al, 2009; Young & Crow, 2017). Candidates with longer
internships, averaging a full year, are better prepared for the position of school leader (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2009; Hackman et al., 1999).
Component 8.3 states, “Candidates are provided a mentor who has demonstrated effectiveness as
an educational leader within a building setting; understands the specific school context; is present
for a significant portion of the internship; is selected collaboratively by the intern, a representative
of the school and/or district, and program faculty; and is provided with training by the supervising
institution.” A high-quality internship should closely supervise candidates, ideally in conjunction
with highly skilled school leaders, and program faculty should regularly evaluate candidates
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). Candidates should be matched with a trained mentor (Cordeiro &
Sloan, 1996; Davis et al., 2005; Geismer, Morris, & Lieberman, 2014; Leithwood et al., 1996; Sosik,
Lee, & Bouquillon, 2005; Young, et al., 2009; Young & Crow, 2017).
The following table shows the breakdown of support for this standard.
Table 9
Evidence for standard 8 by component
Component Direct Indirect Related Total
C8.1: Coherent, authentic
experiences that provide
opportunities to synthesize and apply
the content knowledge and develop
and refine the professional skills
2 4 5 11
C8.2: Minimum of six months of
concentrated (10–15 hours per
week) building-level internship or
clinical experiences that are authentic
leadership activities
0 3 8 11
C8.3: Mentor who has demonstrated
effectiveness as an educational leader
within a building setting; understands
the specific school context
2 7 2 11
Total 4 14 15 33
Note: For more information on the evidence provided here, visit the NELP Standards Building-Level
Database of Evidence.
96
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
References
Adams, C. M., Forsyth, P. B., & Mitchell, R. M. (2009). The formation of parent-school
trust: A multilevel analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(1), 4-33. doi:
10.1177/0013161X08327550.
Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban
schools. School Community Journal, 19(1), 9-32. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.
net /10211.2 /2804.
Barnyak, N. C., & McNelly, T. A. (2009). An urban school district’s parent involvement: A study of
teachers’ and administrators’ beliefs and practices. School Community Journal, 19(1), 33-58.
Retrieved from ERIC.
Barnett, B. G.,Copland, M. A.,& Shoho, A. R.(2009).The use of internships in preparing school
leaders. InM. D. Young,G. M. Crow, J.Murphy, & R. T.Ogawa(Eds.), Handbook of research
on the education of school leaders (pp.371-394).New York, NY:Routledge.
Barnett, K., & McCormick, J. (2004). Leadership and individual principal-teacher
relationships in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 406-434. doi:
10.1177/0013161X03261742.
Begley, P. T. (2006). Self-knowledge, capacity and sensitivity: Prerequisites to authentic
leadership by school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6), 570-589. doi:
10.1108/09578230610704792.
Bell, L., Bolam, R., Cubillo, L. (2003). A systematic review of the impact of school leadership and
management on student outcomes. London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit,
Institute of Education. Retrieved from https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/0/PDF%20
reviews%20and%20summaries/lea_rv1.pdf?ver=2006-03-02-124943-017.
Brezicha, K., Bergmark, U., & Mitra, D. L. (2014). One size does not fit all: Differentiating
leadership to support teachers in school reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(1), 96-
132. doi: 10.1177/0013161X14521632.
Brooks, K., Adams, S. R., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2010). Creating inclusive learning communities for
ELL students: Transforming school principals’ perspectives. Theory Into Practice, 49(2), 145-
151. doi: 10.1080/00405841003641501.
Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role socialization,
professional development, and capacity building. Educational Administration Quarterly,
40(4), 468-494. doi: 10.1177/0013161x04267113.
Bruggencate, G., Luyten, H., Scheerens, J., & Sleegers, P. (2012). Modeling the influence of school
leaders on student achievement: How can school leaders make a difference? Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 699-732. doi: 10.1177/0013161x11436272.
Burch, P., Theoharis, G., & Rauscher, E. (2010). Class size reduction in practice investigating the
influence of the elementary school principal. Educational Policy, 24(2), 330-358. doi:
10.1177/0895904808330168.
97
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing schools
for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of
elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347-373. doi: 10.3102/01623737025004347.
Canole, M., & Young, M. D. (2013). Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis. Washington,
DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Carr, C. S.,Chenoweth, T., &Ruhl, T.(2003).Best practice in educational leadership preparation
programs. In F. C.Lunnenburg& C. S. Carr (Eds.), Shaping the future: Policy, partnerships,
and emerging perspectives: Vol. 11. Yearbook of the National Council of Professors of
Educational Administration (pp.204-222).Lanham, MD:Scarecrow Press.
Cohen-Vogel, L. (2011). “Staffing to the test”: Are today’s school personnel practices
evidence based? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 483-505. doi:
10.3102/016237371141984.
Conley, S., & Glasman, N. S. (2008). Fear, the school organization, and teacher evaluation.
Educational Policy, 22(1), 63-85. doi: 10.1177/0895904807311297.
Cooper, C. W. (2009). Performing cultural work in demographically changing schools: Implications
for expanding transformative leadership frameworks. Educational Administration Quarterly,
45(5), 694-724. doi: 10.1177/0013161X09341639.
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). (2017). Guidelines on program
review with national recognition using Specialized Professional Association (SPA) standards.
Washington, DC: Author.
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2015). Professional Standards for Educational
Leaders (PSEL). Washington, DC: Author.
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2008). Educational Leadership Policy Standards:
ISLLC 2008. Washington, DC: Author.
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (1996). The Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium: Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Author.
Copland, M. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school
improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375-395. doi:
10.3102/01623737025004375.
Cordeiro, P. A., & Smith Sloan, E. (1996). Administrative interns as legitimate participants in the
community of practice. Journal of School Leadership, 6, 4-29. Retrieved from https://eric.
ed.gov/?id=EJ519709.
Crum, K. S., & Sherman, W. H. (2008). Facilitating high achievement: High school principals’
reflections on their successful leadership practices. Journal of Educational Administration,
46(5), 562-580. doi: 10.1108/09578230810895492.
Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson, D., LaPointe, M., & Orr, M. T. (2009). Preparing principals for a
changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership programs. John Wiley & Sons.
98
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. E. (2001). Managing and guiding school reform: Leadership
in success for all schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 219. doi:
10.1177/00131610121969307.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson, D., & LaPointe, M. (2005). Review of research. School
leadership study. Developing successful principals. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University,
Educational Leadership Institute.
Dexter, S., Richardson, J. W., Nash, J. B. (2017). In M.D. Young and G. Crow (Eds.), Handbook of Research
on the Education of School Leaders, 2nd Edition, pp. 202-228. New York: Routledge.
Drago-Severson, E. (2012). New opportunities for principal leadership: Shaping school climates
for enhanced teacher development. Teachers College Record, 114(3), 1-44. Retrieved from
http://www.tcrecord.org/.
Duke, D. L., Tucker, P. D., Salmonowicz, M. J., & Levy, M. K. (2007). How comparable are the
perceived challenges facing principals of low-performing schools. International Studies in
Educational Administration, 35(1), 3-21. doi: 10.7459/ept/28.2.02.
Duke, D., & Salmonowicz, M. (2010). Key decisions of a first-year ‘turnaround’ principal. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 38(1), 33-58. doi: 10.1177/1741143209345450.
Eilers, A. M., & Camacho, A. (2007). School culture change in the making: Leadership factors that
matter. Urban Education, 42(6), 616-637. doi: 10.1177/0042085907304906.
Engel, M. (2013). Problematic preferences? A mixed method examination of principals’ preferences
for teacher characteristics in Chicago. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(1), 52-91.
doi: 10.1177/0013161X12451025.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-
analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22. doi: 10.1177/0042085906293818.
Feuerstein, A. (2000). School characteristics and parent involvement: Influences on
participation in children’s schools. Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 29. doi:
10.1080/00220670009598740.
Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Mind the gap: Organizational learning and improvement in
an underperforming urban system. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 41-71. doi:
10.1086/667700.
Finnigan, K. S. (2012). Principal leadership in low-performing schools: A closer look
through the eyes of teachers. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 183-202. doi:
10.1177/0 013124511431570.
Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first
century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124-142. doi:
10.1108/09578230310464648.
Frick, W. C. (2011). Practicing a professional ethic: Leading for students’ best interests. American
Journal of Education, 117(4), 527-562. doi: 10.1086/660757.
99
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Frick, W. C., Faircloth, S. C., & Little, K. S. (2013). Responding to the collective and individual “best
interests of students”: Revisiting the tension between administrative practice and ethical
imperatives in special education leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2),
207-242. doi: 10.1177/0013161x12463230.
Fuller, E., Young, M., & Baker, B. D. (2011). Do principal preparation programs influence student
achievement through the building of teacher-team qualifications by the principal?
An exploratory analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 173-216. doi:
10.1177/0011000010378613.
Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2003). Transformational leadership effects
on teachers’ commitment and effort toward school reform. Journal of Educational
Administration, 41(3), 228–256. doi: 10.1108/09578230310474403.
Geismar, T. J., Morris, J. D., & Lieberman, M. G. (2000). Selecting mentors for principalship
interns. Journal of School Leadership, 10(3), 233-247. Retrieved from https://eric.
ed.gov/?id=EJ604883.
Gerard, L. F., Bowyer, J. B., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Principal leadership for technology-enhanced
learning in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1007/
s10956-007-9070-6.
Goddard, R., Goddard, Y., Kim, E. S., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles
of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of
student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501-530. doi: 10.1086/681925.
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation
of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary
schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877-896. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/.
Goddard, Y. L., Neumerski, C. M., Goddard, R. D., Salloum, S. J., & Berebitsky, D. (2010). A
multilevel exploratory study of the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of principals’
instructional support and group norms for instruction in elementary schools. Elementary
School J o urnal, 111(2), 336-357. doi: 10.1086/656303.
Good, T. L. (2008). In the midst of comprehensive school reform: Principals’ perspectives. Teachers
College Record, 110(11), 2341-2360. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/.
Gordon, M. F., & Louis, K. S. (2009). Linking parent and community involvement with student
achievement: Comparing principal and teacher perceptions of stakeholder influence.
American Journal of Education, 116(1), 1-31. doi: 10.1086/605098.
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. doi: 10.3102/0002831211402663.
Guramatunhu-Mudiwa, P., & Scherz, S. D. (2013). Developing psychic income in school
administration: The unique role school administrators can play. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 41(3), 303-315. doi: 10.1177/1741143212474803.
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2006). Models of successful principal leadership. School
Leadership and Management, 26(4), 371-395. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-5516-1_3.
100
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Hackmann, D. G., Russell, F. S., & Elliott, R. J. (1999). Making administrative internships
meaningful.Planning and Changing,30, 2-14. Retrieved from http://courses.education.
illinois.edu/eol464/fa2001/464web/MakingInternshipsMeaningf.pdf.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to
fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 221-239. doi: 10.1080/15700760500244793.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011b). Exploring the journey of school improvement: Classifying and
analyzing patterns of change in school improvement processes and learning outcomes. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(1), 1-27. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2010.536322.
Halverson, R. (2010). School formative feedback systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 130-
146. doi: 10.1080/01619561003685270.
Halverson, R., Prichett, R. B., & Watson, J. G. (2007). Formative feedback systems and the new
instructional leadership. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497265.pdf.
Heck, R. H., & Moriyama, K. (2010). Examining relationships among elementary schools’
contexts, leadership, instructional practices, and added-year outcomes: A regression
discontinuity approach. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(4), 377-408. doi:
10.1080/09243453.2010.500097.
Heck, R., & Hallinger, P. (2014). Modeling the longitudinal effects of school leadership on teaching and
learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 653-681. doi: 10.1108/JEA-08-2013-0097.
Hoffman, L. P. (2009). Educational leadership and social activism: A call for action. Journal of
Educational Administration & History, 41(4), 391-410. doi: 10.1080/00220620903211596.
Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement
in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly,
38(1), 77-93. doi: 10.1177/0013161x02038001004.
Ingle, K., Rutledge, S., & Bishop, J. (2011). Context matters: Principals’ sensemaking of teacher
hiring and on-the-job performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 579-610.
doi: 10.110 8/09578231111159557.
Ishimaru, A. (2013). From heroes to organizers: Principals and education organizing in urban school
reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(1), 3-51. doi: 10.1177/0013161x12448250.
Jackson, B. L., & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 192-212. doi: 10.1177/0013161X02382005.
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban
elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237-269. doi:
10.1177/0042085905274540.
Johnson Jr., B. L., & Fauske, J. R. (2000). Principals and the political economy of
environmental enactment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 159. doi:
10.1177/00131610021968949.
Juettner, V. (2003). Culturally responsive schools: Leadership, language, and literacy development.
Talking Points, 14(2), 11-16. Retrieved from ERIC.
101
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Kearney, W. S., Kelsey, C., & Herrington, D. (2013). Mindful leaders in highly effective schools: A
mixed-method application of Hoy’s M-scale. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 41(3), 316-335. doi: 10.1177/1741143212474802.
Khalifa, M. (2010). Validating social and cultural capital of hyperghettoized at-risk students.
Education and Urban Society, 42(5), 620-646. doi: 10.1177/0013124510366225.
Khalifa, M. (2012). A re-new-ed paradigm in successful urban school leadership principal
as community leader. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 424-467. doi:
10.1177/0 013161X11432922.
Kirby, M. M., & DiPaola, M. F. (2011). Academic optimism and community engagement
in urban schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 542-562. doi:
10.1108/09578231111159539.
Klar, H. W., & Brewer, C. A. (2013). Successful leadership in high-needs schools: An examination
of core leadership practices enacted in challenging contexts. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 49(5), 768-808. doi: 10.1177/0013161X13482577.
Kose, B. W. (2009). The principal’s role in professional development for social justice: An
empirically based transformative framework. Urban Education, 44(6), 628-663. doi:
10.1177/0042085908322707.
Kose, B. W. (2011). Developing a transformative school vision: Lessons from peer-nominated
principals. Education and Urban Society, 43(2), 119-136. doi: 10.1177/0013124510380231.
Kurland, H., Peretz, H., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2010). Leadership style and organizational learning:
The mediate effect of school vision. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(1), 7-30. doi:
10.1108/09578231011015395.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1999). Social support and achievement for young adolescents in Chicago:
The role of school academic press. American Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 907-945.
doi: 10.3102/00028312036004907.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Coffin, G., & Wilson, P. (1996). Preparing school leaders: What works?
Journal of School Leadership, 6, 316-342. Retrieved from print copy.
Levin, J. A., & Datnow, A. (2012). The principal role in data-driven decision making: Using case-
study data to develop multi-mediator models of educational reform. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 23(2), 179-201. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2011.599394.
Libby F. G., Bowyer, J. B., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Principal leadership for technology-enhanced
learning in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1007/
s10956-007-9070-6.
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. Retrieved from http://www.
wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-
Student-Learning.pdf.
102
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of
transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 370-
397. doi: 10.1177/0013161X03253412.
Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps.
Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-48. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/.
Marx, S., & Larson, L. L. (2012). Taking off the color-blind glasses recognizing and supporting
latina/o students in a predominantly white school. Educational Administration Quarterly,
48(2), 259-303. doi: 10.1177/0013161X11421923.
Matsumura, L. C., Sartoris, M., Bickel, D. D., & Garnier, H. E. (2009). Leadership for literacy
coaching: The principal’s role in launching a new coaching program. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 655-693. doi: 10.1177/0013161x09347341.
McKenzie, K. B., & Scheurich, J. J. (2004). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing principals
to lead schools that are successful with racially diverse students. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 40 (5), 601-632. doi: 10.1177/0013161x04268839.
McKenzie, K. B., Christman, D. E., Hernandez, F., Fierro, E., Capper, C. A., Dantley, M., ... &
Scheurich, J. J. (2008). From the field: A proposal for educating leaders for social justice.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 111-138. doi: 10.1177/0013161x07309470.
Milstein, M. M., & Krueger, J. A. (1997). Improving educational administration preparation
programs: What we have learned over the past decade. Peabody Journal of Education,
72(2), 100-116. doi: 10.1207/s15327930pje7202_6.
Mintrop, H. (2004). High-stakes accountability, state oversight, and educational equity. The
Teachers College Record, 106(11), 2128-2145. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/.
Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2006). Building schools, building people: The school principal’s role in
leading a learning community. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 627-640. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books.
Mullen, C. A., & Hutinger, J. L. (2008). The principal’s role in fostering collaborative learning
communities through faculty study group development. Theory into Practice, 47(4), 276-
285. doi: 10.1080/00405840802329136.
Murphy, J., & Meyers, C. V. (2009). Rebuilding organizational capacity in turnaround
schools: Insights from the corporate, government, and nonprofit sectors.
Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 37(1), 9-29. doi:
10.1177/174114320 8 098162.
Murphy, J., & Torre, D. (2014). Vision essential scaffolding. Educational Management Administration
& Leadership, 43(2), 177-197. doi: 10.1177/1741143214523017.
Nance, J. P. (2003). Public school administrators and technology policy making. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 434-467. doi: 10.1177/0013161x03255221.
Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence:
What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297-321. doi: 10.3102/01623737023004297.
103
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Orr, M. T., King, C., & LaPointe, M. (2010). Districts developing leaders: Lessons on consumer
actions and program approaches from eight urban districts. Retrieved from Education
Development Center, Inc: http://www.wallacefoundation.org.
Orr, M. T., & Orphanos, S. (2011). How graduate-level preparation influences the effectiveness of
school leaders: A comparison of the outcomes of exemplary and conventional leadership
preparation programs for principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 18-70. doi:
10.1177/0011000010378610.
Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Joshi, A., Pearlman, L., Kim, C. M., & Frank, K. A. (2010). The
alignment the informal and formal organizational supports for reform: Implications for
improving teaching in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 57-95. doi:
10.1177/1094670509353180.
Powell, D., Higgins, H. J., Aram, R., & Freed, A. (2009). Impact of No Child Left Behind on
curriculum and instruction in rural schools. Rural Educator, 31(1), 19-28. Retrieved from ERIC.
Price, H. E. (2012). Principal-teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal
and teacher attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 39-85. doi:
10.1177/0 013161x11417126.
Printy, S. M. (2008). Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice perspective.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 187-226. doi: 10.1177/0013161x07312958.
Printy, S. M., & Marks, H. M. (2006). Shared leadership for teacher and student learning. Theory into
Practice, 45(2), 125-132. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4502_4.
Reyes-Guerra, D. & Barnett, B. (2017). Clinical practice in educational leadership. In M. D. Young
and G. Crow (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of school leaders 2nd Edition.
(Chapter 10). New York, NY: Routledge
Riehl, C. L. (2008). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students:
A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of
educational administration. Journal of Education, 189(1/2), 183-197. doi:
10.3102/00346543070001055.
Robinson, V. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes:
An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674. doi: 10.1177/0013161X08321509.
Sanders, M., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for
school-community collaboration. The Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345-1368.Retrieved
from http://tcrecord.org/.
Sanzo, K. L., Sherman, W. H., & Clayton, J. (2011). Leadership practices of successful
middle school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(1), 31-45. doi:
10.1108/09578231111102045.
Scanlan, M., & Lopez, F. (2012). Vamos! How school leaders promote equity and excellence
for bilingual students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 583-625. doi:
10.1177/0 013161x11436270.
104
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom
instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626-663. doi: 10.1177/0013161x11436273.
Shelden, D. L., Angell, M. E., Stoner, J. B., & Roseland, B. D. (2010). School principals’ influence on
trust: Perspectives of mothers of children with disabilities. Journal of Educational Research,
103(3), 159-170. doi: 10.1080/00220670903382921.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline with
family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35(1), 4-26. doi:
10.1177/001312402237212.
Sheldon, S. B., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2004). Partnership programs in U.S. schools: Their development
and relationship to family involvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 15(2), 125-148. doi: 10.1076/sesi.15.2.125.30434.
Sheldon, S. B., Epstein, J. L., & Galindo, C. L. (2010). Not just numbers: Creating a partnership
climate to improve math proficiency in schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(1), 27-
48. doi:10.1080/15700760802702548.
Shields, C. M. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of silence.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 109-132. doi: 10.1177/0013161x03258963.
Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts.Educational
Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558-589. doi: 10.1177/0013161X10375609.
Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2004). Schools as learning organisations: Effects on teacher leadership and
student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(3-4), 43-466. doi:
10.1080/09243450512331383272.
Singh, M., & Al-Fadhli, H. (2011). Does school leadership matter in the NCLB Era? Journal of Black
Studies, 42(5), 751-767. doi: 10.1177/0021934710372895.
Sosik, J. J., Lee, D., & Bouquillon, E. A. (2005). Context and mentoring: Examining formal and
informal relationships in high-tech firms and K-12 schools. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 12(2), 94-108. doi: 10.1177/107179190501200208.
Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence.
School Leadership & Management, 22(1), 73-91. doi: 10.1080/13632430220143042.
Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2009). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31-56. doi: 10.1177/1094670509353043.
Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. R. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward an
organizational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 36(5), 703-29. doi: 10.1177/00131610021969173.
Taylor, B. M., & Pearson, P. D. (2004). Research on learning to read—At school, at home, and in the
community. Elementary School Journal, 105(2), 167-181. doi: 10.1086/428863.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of
social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-258. doi:
10.1177/0013161x06293717.
105
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Theoharis, G., & Haddix, M. (2011). Undermining racism and a whiteness ideology: White principals
living a commitment to equitable and excellent schools. Urban Education, 46(6), 1332-1351.
doi: 10.1177/00420 85911416012.
Theoharis, G., & O’Toole, J. (2011). Leading inclusive ELL: Social justice leadership for
English language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(4), 646-688. doi:
10.1177/0013161x11401616.
Thoonen, E. E., Sleegers, P. J., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T., & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How to
improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors,
and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 496-536. doi:
10.1177/0 013161X1140 0185.
Timar, T. B., & Chyu, K. K. (2010). State strategies to improve low-performing schools: California’s
high priority schools grant program. Teachers College Record, 112(7), 1897-1936. Retrieved
from http://www.tcrecord.org/.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational
Administration, 39(4), 308-331. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005493.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of
leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217-247. doi:
10.1177/0013161x08330501.
Tucker, P. D., Anderson, E., Reynolds, A. L., & Mawhinney, H. (2016). Analysis of evidence
supporting the Educational Leadership Constituent Council 2011 Educational Leadership
Program Standards.Journal of Research on Leadership Education,11(1), 91-119. doi:
10.1177/1942775116641664.
Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, transformational, and managerial leadership and
student achievement: High school principals make a difference. NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 5-30.
Walker, A., & Shuangye, C. (2007). Leader authenticity in intercultural school contexts. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 35(2), 185-204. doi: 10.1177/1741143207075388.
Walker, J., & Slear, S. (2011). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on the efficacy
of new and experienced middle school teachers. NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 46-64. doi:
10.1177/0192636511406530.
Warren, M., Hong, S., Rubin, C., & Uy, P. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based
relational approach to parent engagement in schools. Teachers College Record, 111(9),
2209-2254. Retrieved from http://tcrecord.org/.
Wayman, J., & Stringfield, S. (2006). Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in
examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education,
112 (4), 549-571. doi: 10.1086/505059.
Williams, L. A., Atkinson, L. C., Cate, J. M., & O’Hair, M. J. (2008). Mutual support between
learning community development and technology integration: Impact on school
practices and student achievement. Theory into Practice, 47(4), 294-302. doi:
10.1080/00405840802329219.
106
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision-making:
Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
19(3), 239-259. doi: 10.1080/09243450802246376.
Young, M. D. (2016). Field perceptions of the Educational Leadership Constituent Council Standards
and the accreditation review process: A field knowledge survey report for the National
Educational Leadership Preparation standards. An unpublished report submitted to the
Council for Chief State School Officers.
Young, M. D., Crow, G., Murphy, J., & Ogawa, R. (2009). The handbook of research on the
education of school leaders. New York, NY: Routledge.
Young, M. D., & Crow, G. (2017). The Handbook of Research on the Education of School Leaders,
2
nd
Edition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Young, M. D., & Mawhinney, H. B. (2012).The research base supporting the ELCC standards:
Grounding leadership preparation & the Educational Leadership Constituent Council
standards in empirical research. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA.
Young, M. D., Rodriguez, C., & Lee, P. (2008). The role of trust in strengthening relationships
between schools and Latino parents. Journal of School Public Relations, 29(2), 174-209.
Retrieved from https://rowman.com/page/JSPR.
Youngs, P., & King, M. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to
build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643-670. doi:
10.1177/0013161x02239642.
107
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Appendix 4: Glossary of Terms
Accreditation. (1) A process for assessing and enhancing academic and educational quality
through voluntary peer review. CAEP accreditation informs the public that an institution has
a professional education unit that has met state, professional, and institutional standards of
educational quality. (2) The decision rendered by CAEP when an institution’s professional education
unit meets CAEP’s standards and requirements.
Accreditation Council. Manages and conducts CAEP’s accreditation functions, including training,
compliance, record keeping, recommending policy changes, and making decisions regarding the
granting or withholding of pre-accreditation and accreditation.
Accuracy in Assessment. The assurance that key assessments are of the appropriate type and
content such that they measure what they purport to measure. To this end, the assessments should
be aligned with the standards and/or learning components that they are designed to measure.
Advanced Programs. Educator preparation programs at the post-baccalaureate or graduate
levels leading to licensure, certification, or endorsement. Advanced-level programs are designed
to develop P-12 teachers who have already completed an initial preparation program, currently
licensed administrators, other certificated (or similar state language) school professionals for
employment in P-12 schools/districts.
Advocate. A school leader advocates when s/he publicly communicates a recommendation and/or
provides support for a policy, resource, student, staff member, or course of action.
Alignment. Used in this document to reference the technical process of demonstrating the
relationship between two or more things (e.g., standards and candidate assessments). The stronger
the alignment between standards, goals, and practices, the greater the level of coherence.
Building Leader. An educator employed by a school district and provided with the formal
authority for working in a school to collaboratively create a mission and vision for the school,
attend to the ethical and professional norms of the school, ensure equity of educational access
among students, ensure student learning and high-quality instruction, engage family members and
other community members, and ensure the efficient and effective operation and management of
the school.
Certification. The process by which a non-governmental agency or association grants professional
recognition to an individual who has met certain predetermined qualifications specified by that
agency or association. (The National Board for Professional Teacher Standards grants advanced
leadership certification.)
Clinical Practice. Field-based leadership practical experiences or internships that provide
candidates with an intensive and extensive culminating activity. Candidates are immersed in the
learning community and are provided opportunities to develop and demonstrate competence in
the professional roles for which they are preparing.
108
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Collaborate. Leaders collaborate when they work jointly with others on activities with the intent of
producing or creating something.
Commitments. The values, beliefs, dispositions, moral commitments, and professional ethics that
underlie an educational leader’s professional performance. A leader’s commitments influence his/
her behaviors and attitudes toward students, families, colleagues, and communities and affect
student learning, motivation, and development as well as the leader’s own professional growth.
Commitments are guided by beliefs and attitudes related to values such as caring, fairness,
honesty, responsibility, equity, and social justice. For example, they might include a belief that all
learners can achieve at high levels, a vision of high and challenging standards, or a dedication to
providing a safe and supportive learning environment.
Communicate. Educational leaders communicate when they share and/or exchange information,
news, or ideas with others, including students, staff members, parents and guardians, and other
members of the wider community.
Components of Standards. Components elaborate on and further define different aspects of the
standard. Components are used as evidence categories by specialized professional associations
(SPA). Program review teams will look for evidence that the program report addresses the
components in order to arrive at a decision on the program’s national recognition status.
Conceptual Framework. An underlying structure in a professional education unit that gives conceptual
meaning to the unit’s operations through an articulated rationale and provides direction for programs,
courses, teaching, candidate performance, faculty scholarship and service, and unit accountability.
Consistency in Assessment. The assurance that key assessments produce dependable results
or results that would remain constant on repeated trials. Institutions can document consistency
by providing training for raters that promotes similar scoring patterns, using multiple raters,
conducting simple studies of inter-rater reliability, and/or comparing results to other internal or
external assessments that measure comparable knowledge, skills, and/or professional dispositions.
Coordinate. Educational leaders coordinate when they assemble the many, varied facets of an
activity or the processes of an organization into a relationship that will help ensure efficiency and/or
alignment among the facets.
Cultivate. Educational leaders cultivate when they promote, encourage, and foster a belief or a
commitment to one or more of the organization’s goals, such as supporting the educational needs
and well-being of every child.
Data. Information with a user and a use that may include individual facts, statistics, or items of
information. For CAEP purposes, data include results of assessment or information from statistical
or numerical descriptions of phenomena, status, achievement, or trends.
Data Literacy. An educator’s ability to gather, synthesize, and build knowledge from data and to
communicate that meaning to others.
109
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Descriptors of Practice. A series of words, phrases, or sentences that describe and identify
observable actions of a person demonstrating a specific knowledge, skill, or attitude.
Design. Educational leaders engage in design when alone, or in collaboration with others, they
review and refine a system or program until it consistently achieves the intended purpose or
outcome(s).
Digital Citizenship. A person utilizinginformation technology in ethical and appropriate ways to
engage in communication, personal and professional learning, society, politics, and government.
Digital Literacy. Includes the ability to utilize information and communication technologies to
explore, identify, critically examine, evaluate, and use online resources as well as to create content,
communicate information, and collaborate online. Digital literacy requires both higher-order
thinking and technical skills.
Dispositions. The habits of professional actions and moral commitments that underlie a leader’s
performance. A leader’s dispositions reflect his or her values, beliefs, and professional attitudes
and ethics and are demonstrated through both verbal and non-verbal behaviors toward students,
families, colleagues, and communities. These behaviors affect student learning, motivation, and
development as well as the leader’s own professional growth. Like commitments, dispositions are
guided by beliefs and attitudes related to values such as caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility,
equity, and social justice. CAEP expects institutions to assess the professional dispositions
of candidates based on observable behaviors in educational settings. The two professional
dispositions that CAEP expects institutions to assess are fairness (NELP standards 2 and 3)
and the belief in the growth of all learners (NELP standard 2). Professional education units can
identify, define, and operationalize additional professional dispositions based on their mission and
conceptual framework.
District Leader. An educator employed by a school district and provided with the formal authority
for working in a district to collaboratively create a mission and vision for the district, attend to the
ethical and professional norms of the district, ensure equity of educational access among students,
ensure student learning and high-quality instruction, engage family members and other community
members and organizations, ensure the efficient and effective operation and management of the
district, and create policies and governance structures that effectively meet the desired district and
school outcomes.
Diversity. Inclusive of student and adult subgroups as well as individual differences. In education,
individual differences include differences in personality, interests, learning modalities, learning
abilities, and life experiences. Furthermore, student and adult subgroupsgenerally refer to any
group of students or adults who share similar characteristics, such as gender identification or
expression, sexual orientation, racial or ethnic identification, socioeconomic status, physical or
learning abilities, nationality, language abilities, religion, or school-assigned classifications (e.g.,
English language proficiency, levels of literacy, special educational needs, etc.).
110
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Equity. Educational equity refers to both processes and outcomes. Educational leaders support
equity when they work to eliminate prejudice and barriers based on individual student and
subgroup differences and when they work to ensure that students achieve equitable outcomes.
Educational leaders understand that equitable rarely means equal, particularly when working to
meet individual student needs.
Evaluate. Educational leaders evaluate when they collect, synthesize, and assign value to data
to help diagnose problems, monitor progress, and make decisions about the extent to which a
project/policy/procedure meets identified goals/objectives or about the quality of performance
and how it might be improved.
Field Experiences. A variety of early and ongoing field-based leadership opportunities (usually
connected to a classroom assignment) in which candidates may observe, assist, tutor, instruct, and/
or conduct research. Field experiences may occur in off-campus settings and include interactions
with organizations such as community and business groups, community and social service
agencies, parent groups, and school boards.
Governance. Refers to the building-level and/or district-level structures and policies through which
those persons with decision-making authority secure and allocate resources, seek and respond
to constituents’ ideas and opinions, and are held accountable for decisions and the actions and
expenses related to implementation.
Indictors. In this document, indicator references the content knowledge and leadership skills
that indicate acceptable candidate performances for NELP standards 1–7 and their requisite
components.
Institutions. Schools, colleges, or departments of education in a university, or non-university
providers.
Institutional Report. A report that provides the institutional and unit contexts, a description of the
unit’s conceptual framework, and evidence that the unit is meeting the CAEP unit standards. The
report serves as primary documentation for board of examiners teams conducting on-site visits.
(See the CAEP website for details.)
Internship. Generally, the post-licensure and/or graduate clinical practice under the supervision of
clinical faculty; sometimes refers to the pre-service clinical experience.
Internship Length Equivalency. The six-month internship experience need not be consecutive and
may include experiences of different lengths. However, all programs must include an extended,
capstone experience to maximize the candidate’s leadership opportunities to practice and refine
his/her leadership skills and knowledge. This culminating experience may be two noncontiguous
internships of three months each, a four-month internship and two field practice opportunities of
one month each, or another equivalent combination. Full-time experience is defined as 9–12 hours
per week over a six-month period.
111
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Institutional Standards. Standards set by the institution that reflect its mission and identify
important expectations for candidate learning that may be unique to the institution’s professional
education unit.
INTASC. The Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, a project of the Council of
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) that has developed model performance-based standards and
assessments for the licensure of teachers.
Knowledge Base. Empirical research, disciplined inquiry, informed theory, and the wisdom of
practice.
Leadership Platform. An educational leader’s leadership platform consists of the leader’s
explicit or implicit statements and beliefs about education and educational leadership. The
leadership platform serves as a personal compass by which an educational leader judges what is
valuable and important to know, how to act, and the criteria that are important to consider when
making a decision.
Licensure. The official recognition by a state governmental agency that an individual has met
certain qualifications specified by the state and is, therefore, approved to practice in an occupation
as a professional. (Some state agencies call their licenses certificates or credentials.)
Nationally Recognized Program. A program that has met the standards of a specialized
professional association (SPA), such as NELP, that is a member organization of CAEP. An institution’s
state-approved program also will be considered a nationally recognized program if the state
program standards and the state’s review process have been approved by the appropriate national
association. (Nationally recognized programs are listed on CAEP’s website.)
Other School Professionals. Educators who provide professional services other than teaching
in schools. They include, but are not limited to, principals, reading specialists and supervisors,
school library media specialists, school psychologists, school superintendents, and instructional
technology specialists.
Performance Assessment. A comprehensive assessment through which candidates demonstrate
their proficiencies in leadership content knowledge; professional leadership skills; and pedagogical
knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions, including their abilities to have positive effects on
student learning.
Performance-Based Licensing. Licensing based on a system of multiple assessments that measure
a leadership candidate’s knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions to determine whether s/he
can perform effectively as a school or district leader.
Performance-Based Program. A professional preparation program that systematically gathers,
analyzes, and uses data for self-improvement and candidate advisement, especially data that
demonstrate candidate proficiencies, including positive effects on student learning.
112
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Performance-Based Accreditation System. A practice in accreditation that makes use of
assessment information describing candidate proficiencies or actions of professional education
units as evidence for determining whether professional standards are met. It contrasts with
accreditation decisions based solely on course offerings, program experiences, and other “inputs”
as the evidence for judging attainment of professional standards.
Performance Criteria. Qualities or levels of a candidate’s leadership proficiency that are used to
evaluate candidate performance, as specified in scoring guides such as descriptions or rubrics.
Performance Data. Information that describes the qualities and levels of proficiency of candidates,
especially in application of their knowledge to classroom teaching and other professional
situations. Sometimes the phrase is used to indicate the qualities and levels of institutional practice,
for example, in making collaborative arrangements with clinical schools, setting faculty professional
development policies, or providing leadership through technical assistance to community schools.
Portfolio. An accumulation of evidence about individual candidate proficiencies, especially in
relation to explicit NELP standards and rubrics, used in an evaluation of competency as a school or
district leader. Contents might include end-of-course evaluations and tasks used for instructional or
clinical experience purposes such as projects, journals, observations by faculty, videos, comments
by cooperating internship supervisors, and samples of candidate work.
Professional Development. Opportunities for professional education faculty to develop new
knowledge and skills through activities such as in-service education, conference attendance,
sabbatical leave, summer leave, intra- and inter-institutional visitations, fellowships, and work in
P-12 schools.
Professional Knowledge. The historical, economic, sociological, philosophical, and psychological
understandings of schooling and education. It also includes knowledge about learning,
diversity, technology, professional ethics, legal and policy issues, pedagogy, and the roles and
responsibilities of the leadership profession.
Professional Standards. Standards set by the specialized professional associations (SPAs) and
adopted by CAEP for use in its accreditation review. Professional standards also refer to standards
set by other recognized national organizations/accrediting agencies that evaluate professional
education programs (e.g., the National Association of Schools of Music).
Proficiencies. Required knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions identified in the
professional, state, or institutional standards.
Program. A planned sequence of courses and experiences for the purpose of preparing teachers
and school and district leaders to work in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade settings. Programs
may lead to a degree, a recommendation for a state license, both, or neither.
Program Approval. Process by which a state governmental agency reviews a professional education
program to determine if it meets the state’s standards for the preparation of school personnel.
113
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Program Completers. CAEP uses the Higher Education Act, Title II definition for program
completers. Program completers are persons who have met all the requirements of a state-
approved teacher preparation program. Program completers include all those who are
documented as having met such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree,
institutional certificate, program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the
program’s requirements.
Program Review. See National Program Review.
Program Report. The report prepared by faculty responsible for a program (e.g., math education,
elementary education) responding to specialized professional association (SPA) standards.
Reflect. Educational leaders reflect when they think carefully and deeply about a subject or topic.
Reflection involves gathering, synthesizing, and evaluating data from a variety of sources to ensure
a variety of viewpoints are included when thinking about a subject or topic.
Rubrics. Written and shared evaluative criteria for judging candidate performance that indicate the
qualities by which levels of performance can be differentiated and that anchor judgments about
the degree of success on a candidate assessment. See Performance Criteria and Scoring Guide.
SASB. Specialty Area Studies Board
Scoring Guide. A tool such as a rubric, evaluation form, etc. used by faculty to evaluate an
assessment. Scoring guides should differentiate varying levels of candidate proficiency on
performance criteria outlined in the SPA standards.
Skills. The ability to apply and use content and professional and pedagogical leadership
knowledge effectively and readily in diverse leadership settings in a manner that ensures that all
learners can achieve.
SPAs. Specialized Professional Associations. The national organizations, such as NELP, that
represent teachers, professional education faculty, and other school professionals who teach
a specific subject matter (e.g., mathematics or social studies), teach students at a specific
developmental level (i.e., early childhood, elementary, middle level, or secondary), teach students
with specific needs (e.g., bilingual education or special education), administer schools (e.g.,
principals or superintendents), or provide services to students (e.g., school counselors or school
psychologists). Many of these associations are member organizations of CAEP and have standards
for both students in schools and candidates preparing to work in schools.
SPA Program Review. The process by which the specialized professional associations assess the
quality of teacher and leadership preparation programs offered by an institution. (Institutions are
required to submit their programs for review by SPAs as part of the CAEP preconditions process,
unless the state’s program standards have been approved by CAEP’s Specialty Area Studies Board
for the review of the institution’s education programs.)
114
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
SPA Program Standards. Standards developed by national professional associations that describe
what professionals in the field should know and be able to do. `
State Program Standards Review. The process by which specialized professional associations
(SPAs) evaluate the alignment of a state’s program standards with the CAEP and with SPA
standards. State standards will be approved by CAEP’s Specialty Area Studies Board, and CAEP
will defer to the state’s review of institutions’ teacher education programs.
Standards. Written expectations for meeting a specified level of performance. Standards exist for
the content that P-12 students should know at a certain age or grade level.
State Approval. Governmental activity requiring specific professional education programs within a
state to meet standards of quality so that their graduates will be eligible for state licensure.
State Program Approval Standards. The standards adopted by state agencies responsible
for the approval of programs that prepare teachers and other school personnel. In most states,
college and university programs must meet state standards in order to admit candidates to
those programs.
State Professional Standards Response. A state’s written response to a specialized professional
association’s review of the state’s program review standards.
State Standards. The standards adopted by state agencies responsible for the approval of
programs that prepare teachers and other school personnel. In most states, college and university
programs must meet state standards in order to admit candidates to those programs.
Strategic Staffing. A process of assessing and discerning the staffing needs of a school/district in
order to realize operational and strategic goals and then assigning staff in ways that are most likely
to realize the school and/or district goals.
Structured Field Experiences. Activities designed to introduce candidates to increasingly greater
levels of responsibility in the leadership roles for which they are preparing. These activities are
specifically designed to help candidates attain identified knowledge, skills, and professional
dispositions outlined in NELP, state, and institutional standards.
Students. Children and youth attending P-12 schools as distinguished from candidates enrolled in
leadership preparation programs within higher education institutions.
Student Sub-Groups. In education,student subgroupgenerally refers to any group of
students who share similar characteristics, such as gender identification, racial or ethnic
identification, socioeconomic status, physical or learning abilities, language abilities, religion,
or school-assigned classifications (e.g., English language proficiency, levels of literacy, special
educational needs, etc.).
Technology. Includes what candidates must know and understand in order to use it to work
effectively with students and professional colleagues in (1) the delivery, development, prescription,
115
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
and assessment of instruction and adult professional learning; (2) problem solving; (3) school and
classroom administration; (4) educational research; (5) electronic information access and exchange;
(6) personal and professional productivity; and (7) communication.
Unit. The college, school, department, or other administrative body in colleges, universities, or
other organizations with the responsibility for managing or coordinating all programs offered
for the initial and advanced preparation of teachers and other school professionals, regardless
of where these programs are administratively housed in an institution. Also known as the
“professional education unit.” The professional education unit must include in its accreditation
review all programs offered by the institution for the purpose of preparing teachers and other
school professionals to work in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade settings.
Unit Review. The process by which CAEP applies national standards for the preparation of school
personnel to the unit.
Well-being. The state of being healthy, comfortable, and happy. Educational leaders are
concerned about the well-being of students, staff members, parents, and community members as
well as their own well-being.
116
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Appendix 5: NELP Reviewer Selection and Training
Program review with National Recognition using NELP standards is a process through which
the NELP SPA assesses the quality of programs offered by educational leadership preparation
programs. Program review helps address the following questions:
• Have candidates mastered the required content knowledge?
• Can candidates conceptualize and plan their teaching or other professional education
responsibilities?
• Can candidates implement their conceptual plan with students, colleagues, and
students’ parents/guardians?
• Are candidates effectively promoting student learning?
• Do candidates meet state licensure requirements?
Reviewers play a critical role in evaluating program evidence that candidates are proficient in
the NELP standards. To ensure that the NELP SPA has a representative and well-trained pool of
reviewers, it engages in intentional reviewer recruitment, selection, and training processes.
Reviewer Recruitment and Selection
Through the NELP SPA’s parent organization, the National Policy Board for Educational
Administration (NPBEA), the NELP SPA encourages school- and district-level educational
leadership practitioners and higher education faculty who prepare school and district leaders to
serve as volunteers on NELP’s educational leadership program review teams. Each of the NELP
organizations (NAESP, NASSP, ICPEL, and UCEA) actively and continually recruits new reviewers
at national, regional, and local meetings to develop and ensure the diversity and expertise of the
reviewer pool. In addition to increasing the number of expert reviewers, both the organizations that
make up the NELP SPA and NPBEA regard reviewing as an opportunity for leadership practitioners
and higher education faculty to strengthen their understanding of the CAEP and SPA requirements
that preparation providers must meet to become Nationally Recognized.
The NELP SPA coordinator is responsible for reviewing candidate nominations and selecting new
NELP reviewers for training. Selections are made based on the SPA’s desire to ensure a diverse
pool of reviewers, an equal representation of practitioners and scholars in educational leadership,
and an equal representation of reviewers from NELP associations.
Each NELP reviewer candidate nomination must meet the following qualifications:
• Must be members in good standing with their representative association;
• Must be currently employed in the educational leadership field, either as a school or
district leader or as a scholar within a Nationally Recognized educational leadership
program at a CAEP institution;
117
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
• Must have expertise in the field of educational administration;
• Must be able to convey clear and concise observations and judgments in writing;
• Must be able to make unbiased professional judgments about educational
administration programs based on NELP standards for programs in educational
leadership;
• Must be able to function effectively in a team environment;
• Must be technology proficient and have access to the internet to pull down documents
from the CAEP website, review documents online, and electronically submit program
report findings; and
• Must be able to commit personal time to review program reports within a two-month
time frame, submit written report findings to team leaders in a timely manner, and
participate in team meetings to reach consensus.
Reviewer Training and Evaluation
Quality assurance occurs at three stages: (1) through initial qualification of new reviewers, (2)
through peer review with team members, and (3) through the Audit Committee review. The NELP
SPA is responsible for training peer reviewers from the educational leadership field to conduct
electronic reviews of program reports submitted by higher education institutions undergoing CAEP
accreditation.
Two member teams consisting of school and district leaders and university/college scholars in
educational leadership are trained to assess administrator preparation programs to determine
their degree of compliance with NELP standards. Each team member submits a report of his/her
findings to a lead reviewer who then convenes a team meeting to discuss the independent results.
After the team reaches consensus, the lead reviewer compiles an electronic report on the team’s
findings and program status recommendation. This report is sent to the NELP Audit Committee
for review. The Audit Committee considers the team’s report and determines whether to grant
national program recognition. The team report and program status decision is then sent to CAEP,
and this information is used in the overall accreditation of the university or college campus.
Each new reviewer must complete an initial rigorous qualification process, and all reviewers must
participate in a recalibration process prior to participating in the review cycle. The SPA coordinator
provides both scheduled training and ad hoc training based on identified needs.
Using the materials included in Appendix 1: Using NELP Standards for Program Evaluation, training
for new program reviewers is conducted online twice a year, once in the spring and once in the fall.
Trainings include:
• Attending two one-hour webinars that provide an overview of the roles and
responsibilities of the reviewers, the review process, steps in reviewing program
reports, and directions for completing the recognition reports;
118
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
• Completing mock program report reviews; and
• Evaluating recognition report writing.
If the results of a training show that a program reviewer does not meet NELP reviewer
qualifications, the NELP SPA coordinator may provide additional trainings and/or pair the reviewer
with an experienced lead reviewer to practice evaluation skills until the reviewer has acquired
sufficient skills to be placed on a NELP review team.
Experienced lead and program reviewers are required to review recalibration materials prior to
participating in a review cycle. The NELP SPA coordinator establishes and provides access to an
electronic, shared NELP reviewer folder that houses the most current SPA reviewer documents,
including an updated, recorded training webinar and related NELP SPA and CAEP materials,
including, but not limited to:
• Guidelines on submitting a SPA initial review report
• Guidelines for submitting revised SPA program reports
• How to plan for the response to conditions report submission
• Guidelines for using and documenting course grades as an assessment of candidate
content knowledge
• Reviewer report writing document
• 2018 NELP building- and district-level standards documents, which includes Appendix
A: Using NELP Standards for Program Evaluation
After the NELP Audit Committee completes its review of the team reports, lead reviewers and
review teams are informed of any changes or revisions to their team reports resulting from the
audit team review. The SPA coordinator evaluates the results of the audit team review and (1)
revises training to address areas of development and (2) identifies reviewers who may require
additional training.
Given that one of the primary goals of NELP is to support preparation programs in educational
leadership, in addition to program reviewer trainings, the SPA coordinator provides NELP
Program Report Training Workshops at least twice a year. These workshops are provided most
often in association with two of the NELP SPA organizations (UCEA and ICPEL) that represent
higher education.
Reviewer Diversity
The NELP SPA and its sponsoring organization, NPBEA, purposefully make every conceivable effort
to recruit, train, and maintain a diverse pool of reviewers who represent racial, ethnic, and gender
diversity; geographic diversity; and diverse roles. The NELP SPA is transitioning from a paper to an
online submission beginning with the NELP program reviewer application form. During this transition
119
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
process, the form will be revised to capture the demographic information requisite to evaluating
the diversity of NELP reviewer applicants. (Note: the online form will launch with the release of
the 2018 NELP standards.) In addition, using a “call for program reviewers,” each of the NPBEA
organizations (NAESP, NASSP, ICPEL, and UCEA) will actively and continually recruit new reviewers
at national, regional, and local meetings to ensure the diversity in roles (i.e., university faculty, school
and district administrators, and expertise of the reviewer pool). For example, NELP SPA member
organizations have committed to the following activities: (1) Executive directors will distribute an
annual letter of invitation to members to serve as a NELP reviewer, and (2) each organization will
provide ad space for a “call for reviewers” in membership magazines. Furthermore, NELP SPA
organizations have committed to recognizing reviewers for their service (e.g., having the NELP SPA of
NPBEA send an e-certificate of appreciation to reviewers after their first full successful year and list
reviewers names and institutional affiliations on the NELP section of the NPBEA website)in each of
the NPBEA organizations (NAESP, NASSP, ICPEL, and UCEA). Finally, NELP organizations will actively
and consistently recruit new reviewers at national, regional, and local meetings to ensure diversity
with regard to the professional roles and expertise (i.e., university faculty and school and district
administrators) of the reviewer pool. As the organizations are national in scope, it is possible to reach
a broad spectrum of states and regions. At the end of each calendar year, the SPA coordinator will
assess and evaluate the diversity of the reviewer pool and coordinate with the Audit Committee chair
should the SPA need to recruit a more representative pool of reviewers.
During each CAEP review cycle, the SPA coordinator purposefully identifies the most diverse pool
of lead and program reviewers based on reviewer availability after the completion of the CAEP’s
conflict of interest form. Team selection also includes pairing diverse members, as feasible. The
table below displays the diversity of the reviewers over the past three years.
NELP Reviewer Profiles: 2014, 2015, 2016
Role States Gender Total N
School
Leader
K-12
District-
Level
Leader
University
Faculty
Number States
Represented
M F
2014
S & F
Cycle
1 36 18 14 23 37
2015
S & F
Cycle
34 16 14 20 34
2016
S & F
Cycle
1 28 16 11 18 29
120
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Appendix 6: NELP Development Committees
Significant appreciation is extended to the following individuals for their time, expertise, and
leadership in the development of the National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP)
standards for building-level leaders.
Committee Members:
Joan Auchter, National Association of Secondary School Principals; ELCC SPA Coordinator
Tom Bellamy, Associate Dean and Professor, University of Washington-Bothell
Monica Byrne-Jimenez, Professor, Indiana University
David Chard, President, Wheelock College
David DeMathews, Associate Professor, University of Texas-El Paso
Ellen Goldring, Professor, Vanderbilt University
Gina Ikemoto, Consultant
Paul Katnik, Assistant Commissioner, Missouri Department of Education
Susan Korach, Professor, University of Denver
Glenn Pethel, Assistant Superintendent, Gwinnet County Public Schools
Don Peurach, Professor, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
L. Oliver Robinson, Superintendent, Shenendehowa Central School District
Cathy Shiffman, Professor, Shenandoah University; ELCC Audit Committee
Pamela Tucker, Professor, University of Virginia
Rose Young, Field Placement Coordinator, Bellarmine University; NAESP
Michelle D. Young, Executive Director, UCEA; NELP Committee Chair
Ex-Officio Members and Research Support:
Erin Anderson, University of Denver
Mary-Dean Barringer, CCSSO
Irving Richardson, CCSSO
Monica Taylor, CCSSO
Saroja Warner, CCSSO
121
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Appendix 7: NELP Building–ELCC 2011–PSEL 2015 Crosswalk
Introduction
The purpose of the NELP standards is to define for preparation programs the knowledge that candidates
for building-level leadership positions should acquire during their preparation and be able to apply
once they are hired. The following crosswalk details the relationships among the National Educational
Leadership Preparation (NELP) standards for building-level leaders, the 2011 Educational Leadership
Constituent Council (ELCC) standards for building-level leaders, and the 2015 Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders (PSEL).
The new NELP standards for building-level leaders reflect all of the elements of the 2011 ELCC for building-
level leaders and the majority of elements from the PSEL standards, as demonstrated in the crosswalk
below. Of key interest to those who are transitioning from the 2011 ELCC standards to the NELP standards
are the areas of difference between these two sets of standards. First, and perhaps most noticeable, is
the total number of standards. The six content standards found in the 2011 ELCC standards have been
increased to seven NELP standards. The expansion enabled the NELP committee to develop standards
that more closely reflect current understandings of building-level leadership, better align to the 10 PSEL
standards, and more clearly delineate several core leadership functions. For example, the 2011 ELCC
standards addressed core values, professional norms, ethics, and equity within one standard. The new
NELP standards, like the 2015 PSEL standards, address these knowledge and competency standards
separately. The NELP standards, like the 2015 PSEL standards, include one standard for ethics and
professional norms (standard 2) and one for equity, inclusiveness, and cultural responsiveness (standard 3).
A second difference is represented within the stem statement of the NELP standards. The NELP standards
expand ELCC’s concern for supporting “the success of every student” to promoting the “current and future
success and well-being of each student and adult.” A third difference in the 2018 NELP standards is the
addition of the building-level leaders’ responsibility for the well-being of students and staff as well as their
role in working with others to create a supportive and inclusive school culture. In addition to being included
in each of the standard stem statements, this focus is found within components 2.1, 3.2, 4.3, and 7.2.
The NELP standards also articulate the building-level leaders’ role in ensuring equitable access
to educational resources and opportunities (3.2); the leaders’ role in evaluating, developing, and
implementing formal and informal assessments (4.3); and the leaders’ role in engaging staff in a
professional culture that promotes improvement, retains teachers, and focuses on the success and well-
being of the students and adults who attend, and work in, the school. Another important change in the
2018 NELP standards is component 6.2, which requires building-level leaders to “reflectively evaluate,
communicate about, and implement laws, rights, policies, and regulations to promote student and
adult success” but does not expect building-level leaders to act to influence those laws, rights, policies,
and regulations. A final difference between the 2018 NELP standards and the 2011 ELCC standards
is the expanded focus of component 7.1. This component expects building-level leaders to “develop
the school’s professional capacity through engagement, recruiting, selecting, and hiring staff.” This
expectation greatly expands upon the 2011 ELCC element 6.2 that only expected leaders to “understand
and sustain a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning….”
122
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
NELP Building–ELCC 2011–PSEL 2015 Crosswalk
NELP Building-Level
Standard 1: Mission,
Vision, and Improvement:
to collaboratively lead,
design, and implement a
school mission, vision, and
process for continuous
improvement that reflects
a core set of values and
priorities that include
data, technology, equity,
diversity, digital citizenship,
and community.
2011 ELCC Program Standard
Elements
2015 PSEL Standard Elements
Component 1.1: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to collaboratively
evaluate, develop, and
communicate a school
mission and vision
designed to reflect a
core set of values and
priorities that include data
use, technology, equity,
diversity, digital citizenship,
and community.
ELCC 1.1: Candidates
understand and can
collaboratively develop,
articulate, implement, and
steward a shared vision of
learning for a school.
ELCC 1.2: Candidates
understand and can collect
and use data to identify school
goals, assess organizational
effectiveness, and implement
plans to achieve school goals.
1a. Develop an educational mission for the
school to promote the academic success and
well-being of each student.
1b. In collaboration with members of the school
and the community and using relevant data,
develop and promote a vision for the school
on the successful learning and development
of each child and on instructional and
organizational practices that promote such
success.
1c. Articulate, advocate, and cultivate core
values that define the school’s culture and stress
the imperative of child-centered education;
high expectations and student support; equity,
inclusiveness, and social justice; openness,
caring, and trust; and continuous improvement.
1d. Strategically develop, implement, and
evaluate actions to achieve the vision for the
school.
1e. Review the school’s mission and vision and
adjust them to changing expectations and
opportunities for the school and changing
needs and situations of students.
1f. Develop shared understanding of and
commitment to mission, vision, and core values
within the school and the community.
1g. Model and pursue the school’s mission,
vision, and core values in all aspects of
leadership.
123
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 1.2: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate
the capacity to lead
improvement processes
that include data use,
design, implementation,
and evaluation.
ELCC 1.3: Candidates
understand and can promote
continual and sustainable
school improvement.
ELCC 1.4: Candidates
understand and can evaluate
school progress and revise
school plans supported by
school stakeholders.
ELCC 4.1: Candidates
understand and can
collaborate with faculty
and community members
by collecting and analyzing
information pertinent to the
improvement of the school’s
educational environment.
10a. Seek to make the school more effective for
each student, teachers and staff, families, and
the community.
10b. Use methods of continuous improvement
to achieve the vision, fulfill the mission, and
promote the core values of the school.
10d. Engage others in an ongoing process
of evidence-based inquiry, learning, strategic
goal-setting, planning, implementation, and
evaluation for continuous school and classroom
improvement.
10g. Develop technically appropriate systems
of data collection, management, analysis, and
use, connecting as needed to the district office
and external partners for support in planning,
implementation, monitoring, feedback, and
evaluation.
10h. Adopt a systems perspective and promote
coherence among improvement efforts and all
aspects of school organization, programs, and
services.
10j. Develop and promote leadership among
teachers and staff for inquiry, experimentation,
and innovation and for initiating and
implementing improvement.
124
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
NELP Building-Level
Standard 2: Ethics and
Professional Norms:
to understand and
demonstrate the capacity
to advocate for ethical
decisions and cultivate and
enact professional norms.
2011 ELCC Program Standard
Elements
2015 PSEL Standard Elements
Component 2.1: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to reflect on,
communicate about,
cultivate, and model
dispositions and
professional norms (e.g.,
equity, fairness, integrity,
transparency, trust, digital
citizenship, collaboration,
perseverance, reflection,
lifelong learning, digital
citizenship) that support
the educational success
and well-being of each
student and adult.
ELCC 2.1: Candidates
understand and can sustain a
school culture and instructional
program conducive to student
learning through collaboration,
trust, and a personalized
learning environment with high
expectations for students.
ELCC 5.1: Candidates
understand and can act
with integrity and fairness
to ensure a school system
of accountability for every
student’s academic and social
success.
ELCC 5.2: Candidates
understand and can
model principles of self-
awareness, reflective practice,
transparency, and ethical
behavior as related to their
roles within the school.
ELCC 5.3: Candidates
understand and can safeguard
the values of democracy,
equity, and diversity within the
school.
ELCC 5.5: Candidates
understand and can promote
social justice within the school
to ensure that individual
student needs inform all
aspects of schooling.
2b. Act according to and promote the
professional norms of integrity, fairness,
transparency, trust, collaboration, perseverance,
learning, and continuous improvement.
2c. Place children at the center of education
and accept responsibility for each student’s
academic success and well-being. (Implicit in all
standards.)
2d. Safeguard and promote the values
of democracy, individual freedom and
responsibility, equity, social justice, community,
and diversity.
3h. Address matters of equity and cultural
responsiveness in all aspects of leadership.
Component 2.2: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to evaluate,
communicate about, and
advocate for ethical and
legal decisions.
ELCC 5.4: Candidates
understand and can evaluate
the potential moral and legal
consequences of decision
making in the school.
9h. Know, comply with, and help the school
community understand local, state, and federal
laws, rights, policies, and regulations in order to
promote student success.
125
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 2.3: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to model ethical
behavior in their personal
conduct and relationships
and to cultivate ethical
behavior in others.
ELCC 5.2: Candidates
understand and can
model principles of self-
awareness, reflective practice,
transparency, and ethical
behavior as related to their
roles within the school.
2a. Act ethically and professionally in personal
conduct, relationships with others, decision
making, stewardship of the school’s resources,
and all aspects of school leadership.
2e. Lead with interpersonal and communication
skill, social-emotional insight, and
understanding of all students’ and staff
members’ backgrounds and cultures.
2f. Provide moral direction for the school, and
promote ethical and professional behavior
among faculty and staff.
126
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
NELP Building-Level
Standard 3: Equity,
Inclusiveness, and
Cultural Responsiveness:
to develop and maintain
a supportive, equitable,
culturally responsive, and
inclusive school culture.
2011 ELCC Program Standard
Elements
2015 PSEL Standard Elements
Component 3.1: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to use data to
evaluate, design, cultivate,
and advocate for a
supportive and inclusive
school culture.
ELCC 2.1: Candidates
understand and can sustain a
school culture and instructional
program conducive to student
learning through collaboration,
trust, and a personalized
learning environment with high
expectations for students.
3a. Ensure that each student is treated fairly,
respectfully, and with an understanding of each
student’s culture and context.
5a. Build and maintain a safe, caring, and
healthy school environment that meets the
academic, social, emotional, and physical needs
of each student.
5b. Create and sustain a school environment
in which each student is known, accepted and
valued, trusted and respected, cared for, and
encouraged to be an active and responsible
member of the school community.
5d. Promote adult-student, student-peer, and
school-community relationships that value and
support academic learning and positive social
and emotional development.
5f. Infuse the school’s learning environment
with the cultures and languages of the school’s
community.
Component 3.2: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to evaluate,
cultivate, and advocate
for equitable access to
educational resources,
technologies, and
opportunities that support
the educational success
and well-being of each
student.
3c. Ensure that each student has equitable
access to effective teachers, learning
opportunities, academic and social support, and
other resources necessary for success.
3e. Confront and alter institutional biases of
student marginalization, deficit-based schooling,
and low expectations associated with race,
class, culture and language, gender and sexual
orientation, and disability or special status.
3g. Act with cultural competence and
responsiveness in their interactions, decision
making, and practice.
3h. Address matters of equity and cultural
responsiveness in all aspects of leadership.
5e. Cultivate and reinforce student engagement
in school and positive student conduct.
127
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 3.3: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to evaluate,
cultivate, and advocate
for equitable, inclusive,
and culturally responsive
instruction and behavior
support practices among
teachers and staff.
ELCC 3.3: Candidates
understand and can promote
school-based policies and
procedures that protect the
welfare and safety of students
and staff within the school.
3b. Recognize, respect, and employ each
student’s strengths, diversity, and culture as
assets for teaching and learning.
3d. Develop student policies and address
student misconduct in a positive, fair, and
unbiased manner.
3g. Act with cultural competence and
responsiveness in their interactions, decision
making, and practice.
3h. Address matters of equity and cultural
responsiveness in all aspects of leadership.
5e. Cultivate and reinforce student engagement
in school and positive student conduct.
7b. Empower and entrust teachers and staff
with collective responsibility for meeting the
academic, social, emotional, and physical needs
of each student, pursuant to the mission, vision,
and core values of the school.
128
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
NELP Building-Level
Standard 4: Learning and
Instruction:
to evaluate, develop,
and implement coherent
systems of curriculum,
instruction, data systems,
supports, and assessment.
2011 ELCC Program Standard
Elements
2015 PSEL Standard Elements
Component 4.1: Program
completers understand
and can demonstrate
the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement
high-quality, technology-
rich curricula, programs,
and other supports for
academic and non-
academic student
programs.
ELCC 2.1: Candidates
understand and can sustain a
school culture and instructional
program conducive to student
learning through collaboration,
trust, and a personalized
learning environment with high
expectations for students.
ELCC 2.2: Candidates
understand and can create and
evaluate a comprehensive,
rigorous, and coherent
curricular and instructional
school program.
4e. Promote the effective use of technology in
the service of teaching and learning.
5c. Provide coherent systems of academic
and social supports, services, extracurricular
activities, and accommodations to meet the
range of learning needs of each student.
Component 4.2: Program
completers understand
and can demonstrate
the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement
high-quality and equitable
academic and non-
academic instructional
practices, resources,
technologies, and services
that support equity, digital
literacy, and the school’s
academic and non-
academic systems.
ELCC 2.3: Candidates
understand and can develop
and supervise the instructional
and leadership capacity of
school staff.
ELCC 2.4: Candidates
understand and can promote
the most effective and
appropriate technologies to
support teaching and learning
in a school environment.
3h. Address matters of equity and cultural
responsiveness in all aspects of leadership.
4c. Promote instructional practice that is
consistent with knowledge of child learning
and development, effective pedagogy, and the
needs of each student.
4d. Ensure instructional practice that is
intellectually challenging, authentic to student
experiences, recognizes student strengths, and
is differentiated and personalized.
Component 4.3: Program
completers understand
and can demonstrate
the capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement
formal and informal
culturally responsive and
accessible assessments
that support data-informed
instructional improvement
and student learning and
well-being.
3g. Act with cultural competence and
responsiveness in their interactions, decision
making, and practice.
3h. Address matters of equity and cultural
responsiveness in all aspects of leadership.
4f. Employ valid assessments that are
consistent with knowledge of child learning
and development and technical standards of
measurement.
4g. Use assessment data appropriately and
within technical limitations to monitor student
progress and improve instruction.
129
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 4.4: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to collaboratively
evaluate, develop, and
implement the school’s
curriculum, instruction,
technology, data systems,
and assessment practices
in a coherent, equitable,
and systematic manner.
ELCC 3.5: Candidates
understand and can ensure
teacher and organizational
time focuses on supporting
high-quality school instruction
and student learning.
ELCC 6.3: Candidates
understand and can anticipate
and assess emerging trends
and initiatives in order to
adapt school-based leadership
strategies.
3h. Address matters of equity and cultural
responsiveness in all aspects of leadership.
4a. Implement coherent systems of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment that promote the
mission, vision, and core values of the school,
embody high expectations for student learning,
align with academic standards, and are culturally
responsive.
4b. Align and focus systems of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment within and across
grade levels to promote student academic
success, love of learning, the identities and
habits of learners, and healthy sense of self.
130
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
NELP Building-Level
Standard 5: Community
and External Leadership:
to engage families,
community, and school
personnel in order to
strengthen student
learning, support school
improvement, and
advocate for the needs
of their school and
community.
2011 ELCC Program Standard
Elements
2015 PSEL Standard Elements
Component 5.1: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to collaboratively
engage diverse families
in strengthening student
learning in and out of
school.
ELCC 4.3: Candidates
understand and can respond to
community interests and needs
by building and sustaining
positive school relationships
with families and caregivers.
3b. Recognize, respect, and employ each
student’s strengths, diversity, and culture as
assets for teaching and learning.
3g. Act with cultural competence and
responsiveness in their interactions, decision
making, and practice.
8a. Are approachable, accessible, and
welcoming to families and members of the
community.
8b. Create and sustain positive, collaborative,
and productive relationships with families and
the community for the benefit of students.
8c. Engage in regular and open two-way
communication with families and the community
about the school, students, needs, problems,
and accomplishments.
Component 5.2: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to collaboratively
engage and cultivate
relationships with
diverse community
members, partners, and
other constituencies for
the benefit of school
improvement and student
development.
ELCC 4.2: Candidates
understand and can mobilize
community resources by
promoting an understanding,
appreciation, and use of
diverse cultural, social, and
intellectual resources within the
school community.
ELCC 4.4: Candidates
understand and can respond to
community interests and needs
by building and sustaining
productive school relationships
with community partners.
3g. Act with cultural competence and
responsiveness in their interactions, decision
making, and practice.
8b. Create and sustain positive, collaborative,
and productive relationships with families and
the community for the benefit of students.
8c. Engage in regular and open two-way
communication with families and the community
about the school, students, needs, problems,
and accomplishments.
8d. Maintain a presence in the community to
understand its strengths and needs, develop
productive relationships, and engage its
resources for the school.
8e. Create means for the school community to
partner with families to support student learning
in and out of school.
8j. Build and sustain productive partnerships
with the public and private sectors to promote
school improvement and student learning.
131
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 5.3: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to communicate
through oral, written,
and digital means with
the larger organizational,
community, and political
contexts when advocating
for the needs of their
school and community.
ELCC 6.1: Candidates
understand and can advocate
for school students, families,
and caregivers.
8h. Advocate for the school and district and for
the importance of education and student needs
and priorities to families and the community.
8i. Advocate publicly for the needs and
priorities of students, families, and the
community.
132
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
NELP Building-Level
Standard 6: Operations
and Management:
to improve management,
communication,
technology, school-level
governance, and operation
systems; to develop and
improve data-informed
and equitable school
resource plans; and to
apply laws, policies, and
regulations.
2011 ELCC Program Standard
Elements
2015 PSEL Standard Elements
Component 6.1: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to evaluate,
develop, and implement
management,
communication,
technology, school-level
governance, and operation
systems that support each
student’s learning needs
and promote the mission
and vision of the school.
ELCC 3.1: Candidates
understand and can monitor
and evaluate school
management and operational
systems.
ELCC 3.2: Candidates
understand and can efficiently
use human, fiscal, and
technological resources to
manage school operations.
ELCC 4.1: Candidates
understand and can
collaborate with faculty
and community members
by collecting and analyzing
information pertinent to the
improvement of the school’s
educational environment.
4e. Promote the effective use of technology
in the service of teaching and learning. 9a.
Institute, manage, and monitor operations and
administrative systems that promote the mission
and vision of the school.
9b. Strategically manage staff resources,
assigning and scheduling teachers and staff to
roles and responsibilities that optimize their
professional capacity to address each student’s
learning needs.
9f. Employ technology to improve the quality
and efficiency of operations and management.
9g. Develop and maintain data and
communication systems to deliver actionable
information for classroom and school
improvement.
Component 6.2: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to evaluate,
develop, and advocate
for a data-informed and
equitable resourcing
plan that supports school
improvement and student
development.
ELCC 3.2: Candidates
understand and can efficiently
use human, fiscal, and
technological resources to
manage school operations.
3h. Address matters of equity and cultural
responsiveness in all aspects of leadership.
9c. Seek, acquire, and manage fiscal, physical,
and other resources to support curriculum,
instruction, and assessment; the student
learning community; professional capacity
and community; and family and community
engagement.
9d. Are responsible, ethical, and accountable
stewards of the school’s monetary and non-
monetary resources, engaging in effective
budgeting and accounting practices.
133
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 6.3: Program
completers understand
and demonstrate the
capacity to reflectively
evaluate, communicate
about, and implement
laws, rights, policies, and
regulations to promote
student and adult success
and well-being.
ELCC 5.4: Candidates
understand and can evaluate
the potential moral and legal
consequences of decision
making in the school.
ELCC 6.2: Candidates
understand and can act to
influence local, district, state,
and national decisions affecting
student learning in a school
environment.
9h. Know, comply with, and help the school
community understand local, state, and federal
laws, rights, policies, and regulations in order to
promote student success.
134
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
NELP Building-Level
Standard 7: Building
Professional Capacity:
to build the school’s
professional capacity,
engage staff in the
development of a
collaborative professional
culture, and improve
systems of staff
supervision, evaluation,
support, and professional
learning.
2011 ELCC Program Standard
Elements
2015 PSEL Standard Elements
Component 7.1: Program
completers understand
and have the capacity to
collaboratively develop
the school’s professional
capacity through
engagement in recruiting,
selecting, and hiring staff.
ELCC 2.1: Candidates
understand and can sustain a
school culture and instructional
program conducive to student
learning through collaboration,
trust, and a personalized
learning environment with high
expectations for students.
7c. Establish and sustain a professional culture
of engagement and commitment to shared
vision, goals, and objectives pertaining to the
education of the whole child; high expectations
for professional work; ethical and equitable
practice; trust and open communication;
collaboration, collective efficacy, and continuous
individual and organizational learning and
improvement.
7d. Promote mutual accountability among
teachers and other professional staff for each
student’s success and the effectiveness of the
school as a whole.
7e. Develop and support open, productive,
caring, and trusting working relationships
among leaders, faculty, and staff to promote
professional capacity and the improvement of
practice.
7g. Provide opportunities for collaborative
examination of practice, collegial feedback, and
collective learning.
Component 7.2: Program
completers understand
and have the capacity
to develop and engage
staff in a collaborative
professional culture
designed to promote
school improvement,
teacher retention, and the
success and well-being of
each student and adult in
the school.
6a. Recruit, hire, support, develop, and retain
effective and caring teachers and other
professional staff and form them into an
educationally effective faculty.
6b. Plan for and manage staff turnover and
succession, providing opportunities for effective
induction and mentoring of new personnel.
135
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards—Building Level
Component 7.3:
Program completers
understand and have the
capacity to personally
engage in, as well as
collaboratively engage
staff in, professional
learning designed to
promote reflection, cultural
responsiveness, distributed
leadership, digital literacy,
school improvement, and
student success.
ELCC 3.4: Candidates
understand and can develop
school capacity for distributed
leadership.
3h. Address matters of equity and cultural
responsiveness in all aspects of leadership.
4e. Promote the effective use of technology in
the service of teaching and learning.
6c. Develop teachers’ and staff members’
professional knowledge, skills, and practice
through differentiated opportunities for
learning and growth, guided by understanding
of professional and adult learning and
development.
6d. Foster continuous improvement of individual
and collective instructional capacity to achieve
outcomes envisioned for each student.
6g. Develop the capacity, opportunities, and
support for teacher leadership and leadership
from other members of the school community.
7a. Develop workplace conditions for teachers
and other professional staff that promote
effective professional development, practice,
and student learning.
7f. Design and implement job-embedded
and other opportunities for collaborative
professional learning with faculty and staff.
Component 7.4: Program
completers understand
and have the capacity
to evaluate, develop,
and implement systems
of supervision, support,
and evaluation designed
to promote school
improvement and student
success.
ELCC 2.3: Candidates
understand and can develop
and supervise the instructional
and leadership capacity of
school staff.
6e. Deliver actionable feedback about
instruction and other professional practice
through valid, research-anchored systems of
supervision and evaluation to support the
development of teachers’ and staff members’
knowledge, skills, and practice.
6.f. Empower and motivate teachers and staff to
the highest levels of professional practice and to
continuous learning and improvement.
http://www.npbea.org/
