Educational Leadership Preparation in New York State: A Landscape Analysis

Methodology

Conducting the landscape study required two steps—identifying all New York state-approved and functioning leadership preparation programs and collecting data about their program structure, content, and delivery, including their focus on leadership and diversity, equity, and inclusion, and number of graduates.

Identifying Programs

The first step involved identifying all the current School Building Leader (SBL) programs across New York State. Data collection for this project occurred in two parts. First, we accessed the New York State Education Department (NYSED) "Inventory of Registered Programs" page, which listed 50 state-registered school leadership programs.

Second, for each identified program, we looked up its respective university and department website from August 2023 to June 2024 to confirm its status. In this review, we determined which programs were still in operation and which had been closed. A key outcome of this inventory was confirming that there were 37 currently active programs in New York State.

To understand the geographic spread of programs, we sorted and classified the leadership programs by region, as designated by New York State programs. In all, there were 37 programs, as shown in Table 1 by region; see Appendix A for the list of active programs.

Collecting Program Information

We collected program information for these 37 programs in three ways: website analysis, program features survey, and IPEDS data extraction.

Website Analysis

From their websites, we gathered the following information: geographic location, presence of SBL and SBL/SDL programs, contact information, and the program's URL address. This information was compiled into a spreadsheet and converted into a statewide program directory.

Program Features Survey

Design. Two project members drafted an initial survey, which the whole project team and the NYS Chancellor reviewed and provided feedback. New York State's CR-SE framework, the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSELs), and Rabb, Generett, Good & Theoharis's (2021) book Five Practices for Equity-Focused School Leadership guided the development of survey items. To test the quality of the survey, we conducted face validity with three educational leadership professors whose programs represented three different regions from across New York State. Additionally, we had key State-level educational leaders review the survey. We integrated feedback from these key stakeholders. The final survey was designed to collect the following information for each program: geographic location, presence of SBL and SBL/SDL programs, number of credits required, modality of offerings, program costs, faculty attributes, student demographics, and a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programming.

Fielding. The survey was fielded in Spring 2024 by emailing the program directors of the 37 active programs, with five follow-up requests. Once we hit a 75%-response rate, we turned to contacting program directors directly from the nonresponding institutions and interviewed them to complete the survey for them.

In all, we were able to achieve a 97% response rate, with one program not responding. Additionally, we removed one program because the coordinator shared that their SBL program was embedded within a doctoral program and they did not provide information on their institution's free-standing SBL program. For this study, we are only looking at dedicated school building leadership preparation programs and excluding those that were embedded in doctoral programs. Thus, we had only 35 programs with usable survey responses.

Extracting IPEDS Data

To document program outcomes, we developed a dataset on the number of graduates using the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for the 2023–2024 academic year. We searched for the outcome measures—Postgraduate Certificate and Master's—for all 37 colleges and universities in New York State offering educational leadership programs.

IPEDS classifies program outcomes using multiple taxonomies. Of the 14 available taxonomic categories, we included only those directly related to the principalship; programs focused on the superintendency were excluded. Most institutions report principal certification graduates under "Educational Leadership and Administration, General," while a few use "Instructional and Curriculum Supervision." One institution uses "Elementary and Middle School Administration/Principalship." We combined the data for Educational Leadership and Administration, General and Instructional, and Curriculum Supervision to produce the final dataset. This dataset was uploaded to SPSS and merged with our existing survey and website data for analysis. The publicly available IPEDS data results by institution are included as Appendix B.

Analysis

We combined the website, survey data and IPEDS data into one data set. Where there were inconsistencies, we relied upon the program director survey feedback to be the most up-to-date. The data were then analyzed using SPSS to generate descriptive statistics and crosstabulations of program features and delivery by region of the state and public or private status, testing statistical differences where relevant.

We learned in our analysis that some institutions have several programs or offer the same program through different modalities. As we gathered survey data from one program director for each institution, we are assuming that the responses reflect all versions of the programs for institutions with more than one program.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

Findings: Program Structure, Content, and Delivery

To address our second question, we identified the nature of program delivery and analyzed regional and institutional type differences. The program delivery attributes included: certificate options, program options, number of credits and instructional modality. As part of program delivery, we examined two program inputs—tuition costs and the nature of the faculty (as either full-time faculty or adjunct). Below, is the landscape of the program delivery statewide and as compared regionally and by institution type.

Certificate Options

According to our survey results, the majority of institutions offer a combined SBL/SDL program (63%). Thirty-seven percent offer only an SBL certificate program.

The distribution of types of certificate programs varies across regions (see Table 2). In the Lower Hudson Valley, no institution offers an SBL-only certificate program. In Upstate New York, 75% of the institutions have SBL-only certificate programs. Conversely, all institutions in the Lower Hudson Valley prepare graduates for both SBL and SDL certification. Similarly, 75% of programs in Western New York and 70% of New York City institutions prepare graduates for both SBL and SDL certification within one program. Only 25% of institutions in Upstate New York offer SBL and SDL certification preparation within one program, making it more challenging to obtain SDL certification in Upstate New York.

Private institutions are more likely than public institutions to offer the combined SBL and SDL certification program (63% vs. 56%) and are less likely to prepare graduates only for the SBL (see Table 5).

Educational Credential Option

The various institutions offer two types of graduate credential options: a master's degree, a post-graduate certificate or both options.

The distribution of types of educational credential options varies by region (see Table 2). In Central New York, 100% of the institutions' programs lead to a post-graduate certificate only. These institutions do not offer a master's degree option. Similarly, in Upstate New York (75%) and Long Island (67%), the majority of the institutions' programs lead solely to a post-graduate certificate. In contrast, 50% of the institutions' programs offered in New York City lead to a master's degree only, 10% are certificate only, and the other 40% have programs leading to both a master's degree or a post-graduate certificate. All the programs in the Lower Hudson Valley lead to both a master's degree or a certificate.

Private institutions are more likely than public institutions to offer both educational credential options (56% vs. 31%), while public institutions are more likely to offer only a credential option (see Table 5).

Number of Credits

The institutions' programs averaged about 31 required credits in length, but ranged widely from 22 to 36 credits (see Table 6). This average and range masks wide variations among the programs: Five programs require 22-26 credits, while 7 programs require 35-36 credits. This variability was unrelated to whether the preparation programs are only for School Building Leader (SBL) preparation or a combination of school and district leader preparation (SBL/SDL).

The average number of required credits varied somewhat by region and institution type. The range was from a low average of 29 credits for Long Island institutions' programs to almost 33 credits for Upstate New York institutions' programs (see Table 6).

There was a statistically significant difference between public and private institutions in the number of required program credits, with public institutions requiring more credits on average than private institutions (32.6 vs 29.2 credits) (see Table 7).

Modality

The institutions delivered their School Building Leadership (SBL) programs through a variety of modalities. None offer only an in-person program, while 21% offer their programs as hybrid only, combining in-person and online experiences (see Table 2). Fifty-one percent offer their programs only online, including 18% that offer only an asynchronous program option, which means they never meet, and 33% offer synchronous and asynchronous. The remaining 27% of programs offer multiple program options with different modalities (e.g., a hybrid program and an online program).

There are some regional differences in where hybrid-only programs (with their in-person components) are offered: The majority of institutions' programs on Long Island and in Western NY are only online, while all the Lower Hudson Valley programs include hybrid options.

Public institutions are more likely to offer multiple modalities (40% vs. 20%) and as likely to offer on the hybrid option (20%) as private institutions (see Table 5).

Program Cost

A key part of program structure and delivery is cost, which we found varied widely among the programs and regions. The average cost of tuition in 2023-24 among the reporting institutions' programs was $725 per course credit, ranging from $430 to $1868.

The per-credit tuition rate varied by region from a high average of $915 per credit on Long Island to a low average of $517 in Upstate New York. These regional differences in part reflect differences between prevalence of public and private institutions, with private institutions' average tuition per credit almost twice that of public institutions ($991 vs. $509) (see Tables 6 and 7).

The average total tuition (credits*tuition) among these programs is $22,238, and ranges widely from a low of $11,280 to a high of $56,040. There were regional differences, with the highest average total tuition found in the Lower Hudson Valley and Long Island and the lowest in Central and Upstate New York. The greatest difference was by institution type, however, with private institutions' average total tuition that is 75% significantly higher than public institutions' ($29,079 vs $16,498).

Faculty and Adjuncts

Staffing leadership preparation programs varied widely among the institutions. The institutions' leadership preparation programs have an average of 2.7 tenure/tenure track and clinical faculty, ranging from 0 to 10. Public institutions have a higher average number of faculty than do private institutions (3.14 vs 2.36 faculty). There are also strong regional differences in the average number of faculty. Institutions' programs on Long Island and in Western New York had few faculty on average (1.33-1.44), while institutions in NYC and Upstate New York averaged almost three times as many faculty members (4.0-4.3).

In contrast, the institutions average 10.4 adjunct faculty teaching in their programs, ranging from 0 to 78. There was no difference between the averages for public and private institutions on the number of adjuncts used (see Table 7). But, this average ranges widely by region, from a low average of 5 adjunct faculty in the Lower Hudson Valley programs to a high average of 21 adjunct faculty per program on Long Island (see Table 6).

Relationship Among Program Attributes

We explored several relationships among program attributes and found some patterns. We correlated the number of credits, tuition per credit, number of faculty and adjuncts, number of graduates, and percentage of students who are female or white. There was no significant relationship among these, with the exception that the number of program graduates is significantly and positively related to the number of program adjuncts and average tuition per credit.

There were discernible differences by modality, however (see Table 8). On average, asynchronous-only programs are somewhat shorter than programs with other modalities, have the lowest average tuition per credit, and have the lowest percentage of students who are female (63%). Online programs (combining synchronous and asynchronous modalities) have the highest average tuition per credit, the highest average number of adjunct faculty, the highest percentage of students who are female, and the largest average number of graduates.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

Discussion

The Landscape of Educational Leadership Programs in New York State

Our analysis of leadership preparation programs reveals several important trends. First, the overall number of programs has declined, largely due to institutional and program closures at private universities, with most occurring in the New York City metropolitan area. Still, the majority of programs statewide remain concentrated in that region.

Graduation patterns also vary by geography. Long Island programs produce the largest number of graduates with post-graduate certificates or master's degrees in educational leadership, while Upstate and Western New York produce the fewest. This raises potential access issues for aspiring leaders outside the metropolitan area, though the growing use of online modalities may mitigate geographic barriers.

The modality of the program, tuition, and faculty type mattered. Programs with higher tuition and greater reliance on adjunct faculty graduated more students on average. This is puzzling as it appears as though more expensive programs are serving larger numbers of graduates. This pattern suggests that large cohorts of future leaders may be educated primarily by adjunct instructors. Notably, there are reduced opportunities across the state for in-person learning experiences for aspiring leaders as institutions embrace online learning modalities.

Credit requirements also differed somewhat across regions and sectors. Long Island programs require the fewest credits while producing the most graduates. Public institutions typically require more credits than private ones, which appears to offset higher tuition costs by reducing credit requirements.

Taken together, the landscape of principal preparation in New York appears to be defined by online delivery, streamlined credit requirements, and an adjunct-heavy instructional model. While regional differences remain, the broader pattern raises important questions about quality, access, and sustainability. Program competition may be driving program design and delivery, toward lower credit requirements and greater reliance on adjunct faculty. Monitoring program growth and closures in the coming decade will be essential as well as setting expectations for program quality, particularly as state certification requirements continue to evolve.

The Landscape of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Preparation Practices in New York State

Our analysis of leadership preparation programs across New York State reveals both encouraging practices and notable disparities in how programs address diversity, equity, and inclusion. A central finding is that just under one-third of programs (32%) require a dedicated DEI or social justice course. However, this average conceals regional differences. Programs in Central, Western, and Upstate New York were more likely than others to require such coursework, with over half reporting a dedicated DEI course. In contrast, not a single program on Long Island offered this requirement. The Lower Hudson Valley and New York City programs fell in between, with approximately one-third to one-half reporting a course dedicated to DEI. Sectoral differences were also evident. Private institutions were more likely than public ones to require a dedicated DEI course (39% compared to 25%).

Most institutions' programs, regardless of having a dedicated course, integrate social justice explicitly throughout all coursework and internship experience. The regional differences suggest that, although most programs strive to address DEI, the extent of coverage is uneven. Importantly, program directors reported their strongest emphasis on broad principles—striving for equity, developing professional capacity, and cultivating cultural competence. In these areas, program ratings were consistently high, with nearly all directors reporting moderate to extensive integration of equity principles across coursework.

At the same time, findings reveal persistent gaps when considering developing leadership to support specific student populations. While programs rated themselves highly in preparing leaders to support students with disabilities, average scores dropped when considering English Language Learners and LGBTQ+ students, and fell even further for Indigenous students. This discrepancy highlights a tension between a strong general commitment to equity and a lack of depth in preparing leaders for the diverse realities of particular student groups.

Instructional practices also varied widely across programs. The majority used DEI-focused case studies and texts, and about half incorporated identity development courses. Fewer programs reported experiential or community-based practices such as equity audits, simulations, community walks, or thesis projects focused on equity. Some directors, however, described innovative practices, such as simulations with trained actors or participation in campus-based racial healing initiatives. These practices suggest that while experiential approaches are not universal, they may provide powerful models for engaging students in active, practice-based learning about DEI.

Recruitment efforts further demonstrate the ways in which institutional context shapes DEI commitments. Most programs recruited primarily from local school districts, with some drawing on professional associations or offering targeted scholarships for aspiring leaders of color. Private institutions appeared somewhat more proactive in these targeted efforts. Student demographics varied significantly by region: while New York City and the Lower Hudson Valley reported lower proportions of White students and higher proportions of students of color, programs in Western New York reported the highest percentages of White enrollment. Female students represented a large majority overall with their concentration especially high in New York City programs.

Taken together, these findings point to a system that has made substantial progress in weaving DEI principles into leadership preparation but still demonstrates unevenness across regions, sectors, and student groups. Programs have aligned their curricula with Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL) and New York's Framework for Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education, particularly around equity, professional capacity, and continuous improvement. However, the weaker ratings for supporting English Language Learners, Indigenous students, and LGBTQ+ students highlight areas where programs fall short of the state's own standards for building welcoming and affirming environments.

Ultimately, these findings underscore both the promise and the challenge of preparing equity-focused school leaders in New York. Programs have broadly embraced the need for DEI integration, but differences remain by region and by institutional sector.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

References and Appendices

References

1. Baum, S. and Steele, P. (2018). The price of graduate and professional school: How much students pay. Access Lex-Funded Research. 12
2. National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders 2015. Retrieved August 16, 2025, from https://www.wallacefoundation.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/Professional-Standards-for-Educational-Leaders-2015.pdf
3. New York State Education Department. (n.d.). Culturally responsive-sustaining education framework. Retrieved August 16, 2025, from https://www.nysed.gov/crs/framework
4. Radd, S. I., Generett, G. G., Gooden, M. A., & Theoharis, G. (2021). Five practices for equity‑focused school leadership. ASCD
5. Fuller, E. J., & Young, M. D. (2022). Challenges and Opportunities in Diversifying the Leadership Pipeline: Flow, Leaks and Interventions [Article]. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 21(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2021.2022712
6. Koonce, G. (2009). Accreditation: A Standards-Based Model for Aligning Learning Outcomes in a Master's Degree Educational Leadership Preparation Program. International journal of educational leadership preparation, 4(3), 2009. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=2492d7ff-b077-3b7f-9b57-65c7d1289438
7. Pavlakis, A., & Kelley, C. (2016). Accreditation in the Professions: Implications for Educational Leadership Preparation Programs. Journal of research on leadership education, 11(1), 68-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775116641663
8. Perrone, F., & Tucker, P. D. (2019). Shifting Profile of Leadership Preparation Programs in the 21st Century. Educational administration quarterly, 55(2), 253-295.
9. Reyes-Guerra, D., Barakat, M., & Maslin-Ostrowski, P. (2022). Developing a More Diversified School Leadership Pipeline: Recruitment, Selection and Admission through an Innovative University-District Partnership. Leadership and policy in schools, 21(1), 48-63.
10. Scott, D. (2018). 50-State Comparison: School leader certification and preparation programs.
11. Steele, J. L., Steiner, E. D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2021). Priming the Leadership Pipeline: School Performance and Climate under an Urban School Leadership Residency Program. Educational administration quarterly, 57(2), 221-256.

Appendix A: Active Educational Leadership Programs in New York State

In total, 37 programs were identified via the website data. There are 35 programs identified in the survey data; two programs did not provide information.

For a complete, searchable directory of these programs with contact information, please visit:
New York State Educational Leadership Program Directory

Central NY (4 programs)

• Le Moyne College
• SUNY Cortland
• SUNY Oswego
• Syracuse University

Long Island (6 programs)

• Adelphi University
• Hofstra University
• Long Island University Post
• Molloy University
• St. Joseph's University
• SUNY Stony Brook

Lower Hudson Valley (3 programs)

• Manhattanville University
• SUNY New Paltz
• Mercy University

New York City (11 programs)

• Bank Street College of Education
• Teachers College, Columbia University
• CUNY Brooklyn College
• CUNY City College
• CUNY College of Staten Island
• CUNY Hunter College
• CUNY Lehman College
• CUNY Queens College
• Fordham University
• St. John's University
• Touro University

Upstate New York (4 programs)

• Russell Sage College
• SUNY Albany
• SUNY Plattsburgh
• SUNY Potsdam

Western New York (9 programs)

• Buffalo State University
• Canisius College
• Niagara University
• St Bonaventure University
• St. John Fisher University
• SUNY Binghamton
• SUNY Brockport
• SUNY Buffalo
• SUNY Fredonia

Appendix B: IPEDS Graduate Data by Institution

The following table shows the number of graduates from New York State Leadership Preparation Programs by institution, type of certificate or degree, for the 2023-2024 academic year, as reported through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

↑ Back to Table of Contents