Educational Leadership Preparation in New York State: A Landscape Analysis

Findings: The Landscape of Leadership Preparation in New York State

Our first question was intended to capture the landscape of leadership preparation programs in New York State. We counted programs by institution, as several institutions have multiple programs. Based on our analysis, we determined that, currently, there are 37 institutions with leadership preparation programs across New York state leading to School Building Leadership certification. These programs are listed in Appendix A.

Program Changes

In recent years, 26% (13 of 50 on the NYSED list) of the institutions had educational leadership programs that closed across the state. Three institutions closed: Concordia, College of New Rochelle, and College of St. Rose, and ten institutions discontinued or put their SBL certification programs on hiatus. In terms of sector affiliation, 92% of closed institutions are private. No public institutions closed. The only public program to close was at Baruch, CUNY. Most closed programs (69%) were in the New York metropolitan area.

Regional Distribution

As our regional analysis shows, the programs are unevenly distributed across New York. Over half (54%) of the programs are located in the New York metropolitan area (NYC, Long Island and the lower Hudson Valley), with the most programs in New York City (30%), see Figure 1. Outside of New York City, Western New York has the most programs at 24%, followed by Long Island (16%), Central (11%), and Upstate (11%) New York. The Lower Hudson Valley (8%) has the fewest programs.

Figure 1: Dispersion of 37 Active Educational Leadership Preparation Programs by New York Region

For a complete list of institutions by region, see the New York State Educational Leadership Program Directory or Appendix A.

Institution Type

The majority of programs, 51%, are offered by private institutions. Forty-nine percent of these programs are run by public institutions, either the State University of New York (SUNY) or the City University of New York (CUNY).

The distribution of types of certificate programs varies across regions. 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.

The distribution of types of educational credential options varies by region. 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.

None offer only an in-person program, while 21% offer their programs as hybrid only, combining in-person and online experiences. 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 than private institutions to offer the hybrid program option (60% vs. 40%).

Number of Graduates

The institutions' programs varied widely in the number of graduates earning either a post-graduate certificate or a master's degree. This ranges from a low of 0 to a high of 165 graduates in 2024, based on IPEDS reporting data. Table 3 shows the average number of program graduates by region and the total number of graduates by region in 2024.

The average number of graduates by institution is smallest in Upstate New York and Western New York (15 graduates) and largest on Long Island (67 graduates). The state averages 13 master's graduates and 23 postgraduate certificate graduates by program.

According to the IPEDS data, there were 1,140 educational leadership graduates statewide in 2024, 36% of whom earned a master's and 64% earned a postgraduate certificate. The total number of graduates varied widely by region, with 35% from Long Island institutions' programs. The smallest number are graduates of programs in institutions in the Lower Hudson Valley and Upstate New York. These figures represent the location of the institution of the leadership preparation program and not the graduates, however. Several institutions have programs that are online and serve aspiring leaders from around the state. Other programs have partnerships with districts in other parts of the state, as well, which may skew how graduates are counted by region.

The number of graduates was also analyzed by type of institution, as shown in Table 4. Private institutions average significantly more graduates per program than do public institutions (41 and 31 per program, respectively). Combined, 56% of all graduates earned their degree or certificate from a private institution, half of whom earned a master's degree.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

Findings: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Preparation Practices

Of primary interest for our investigation was how programs addressed diversity and social justice in their leadership preparation programs, including whether they had a dedicated course and what content topics were covered in their programs.

Dedicated Course

As shown in Table 9, 32% of the programs have a dedicated DEI or social justice course. There was wide regional variation in this course requirement. Over half the programs in Central, Western and Upstate New York had such a requirement, while none on Long Island did. Private preparation programs were significantly more likely than public programs to have this course requirement (39% vs. 25%). Examples of names of the DEI-focused course titles include: Reading for Equity and Social Justice, Leading for Excellence: Educational Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, and Culturally Responsive Leadership.

Almost all program directors (89%) indicated that DEI was integrated either moderately or extensively across all coursework (See Table 10). In open-ended questions, some program directors shared that in their programs, DEI-focused curricula occur throughout their coursework, rather than being situated in a particular course. For example, one program director explained that DEI-related content was the focus of a special education course, but then, they also "weave [it] intentionally throughout the program and internships." Similarly, another program director hailing from across the State shared that, "We weave DEI research and anti racist leadership practices into each course. We use the text, Five Practices for Equity Focused School Leadership, over several of our beginning courses."

Instructional Content and Learning Activities

We also explored how and the extent to which the institutions' programs included content that developed leadership skills to support diversity, equity and inclusion. Using a 5-point scale (1=not at all true…5=to a great extent), program directors rated the extent to which their programs covered 11 different DEI-related content and experiences for their typical students seeking school building leadership certification. The program directors rated their programs highly in the areas of developing students' capacity to strive for equity (4.9) and developing staff's cultural competence (4.84). In fact, 91% of coordinators said that to a great extent they developed students' capacity to strive for equity. Around 83% of directors reported assessing DEI content either moderately (34%) or to a great extent (49%) (See table 10).

The 11 experiences were averaged together as an overall rating of program depth, as shown in Table 9, and compared regionally and by institution type. The results show an average of 4.2 (between moderate and great extent) among the 11 indicators, ranging from 2.9 to 5 average of extensiveness of indicator coverage. This average ranged somewhat by region, between a low of 3.8 in Western New York (reflecting "somewhat") to a high of 4.8 in the Lower Hudson Valley. There was little difference in the average number of indicators between public and private institutions.

Some program directors also shared information about the instructional content activities that were employed in their courses to support learning about diversity, equity, and inclusion. The majority of programs incorporate an equity focus in their courses by using DEI-focused case studies (86%) while 57% reported that their programs assigned DEI-focused course texts. Some program directors (51%) reported that some courses focused on racial identity development. These readings and course foci require students to reflect on how their individual backgrounds and experiences shaped their perceptions of education and society. Program directors also rated how much their programs exposed their students to research by scholars of color (3.8)(see Table 10), with only around 30% indicating they did so to a great extent.

In open-ended questions, some program directors identified active learning activities to develop DEI-related leadership skills, including equity audits (46%), simulations (37%), community walks (29%), and DEI-focused portfolio or thesis (23%). One program director described the benefit of this active learning approach referencing, "the power of community walks and projects to engage families and stakeholders." She also shared that action research (another active learning strategy) focused on bringing marginalized and minoritized students into the sphere of success." Following this theme of active learning, another program director described, "In each course in the program, students must engage in a simulation with a trained actor, and many of the simulations are DEI focused." Finally, a few programs included intensive learning experiences. For example, one program director incorporated resources and supports offered by their larger institution, including "Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation Healing Circles available to the campus." She shared that her program also participated in "social justice teach-ins, annual events on campus, and the National Day of Racial Healing."

Inclusive Practices

Notably, when it came to developing leadership capacity to support individual groups inclusively, the program directors rated their program content much lower, see Table 10. Program directors were asked to rate the extent to which they developed students' capacity to support a variety of student groups, and their average ratings reflect a moderate focus on students with disabilities (4.0 on a 5-point scale), but less so on ELLs and LGBTQ+ students (3.6), and far less on indigenous students (3.0). Moreover, only about a quarter of the program directors thought that their programs developed leadership capacity to support ELLs and SWDs to a great extent, and around a sixth believed they developed students' leadership capacity to support LGBTQ+ and Indigenous students to a great extent. To a slightly more than a moderate extent, program directors reported that they were likely to integrate DEI throughout their program and were able to assess their students' DEI skills.

We also asked program directors to rate the extent to which they developed students' leadership capacity in related areas that would support DEI goals. Program directors had a high average rating reflecting extremely positive responses regarding their emphasis on continuous improvement (4.87) with 91% saying they use these strategies to a great extent. Similarly, 100% of respondents indicated that their programs teach aspiring leaders to develop and support rigorous, culturally relevant, and coherent systems of curriculum, instruction, and assessment with 89% replying with to a great extent. Overall, directors responded positively to general curricular and DEI goals, but less so when addressing leadership capacity to support particular student sub-groups.

Alignment with PSEL Standards and CR-SE Framework

We analyzed the scope of this content in terms of the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL) and the NYS Framework for Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education (CR-SE) Framework (as shown in Table 11). As this standards analysis shows, the program directors rated their programs very high in addressing areas that align with four PSEL standards and the CR-SE framework, with the exception of supporting specific student groups (which is critical for promoting a community of care and a welcoming and affirming environment).

Recruitment Practices

As part of our investigation, we asked program directors to identify how they recruited students, particularly for diversity. The majority of program directors (60%) reported that they recruited diverse students by targeting local school districts. At least one institution diversifies its program's students by recruiting locally. As the program director explained, "given where [our institution] is situated, recruitment efforts are concentrated in the Bronx, and we typically attract Black, Latinx, and AAPI students, many of whom grew up in and work in the Bronx, along with a few white students."

Other recruitment strategies appeared to be more generic and not necessarily targeted at diverse students, including university recruitment events (50%) and social media outreach (48%). Some institutions had targeted strategies like recruiting students via professional organizations (30%), such as the Long Island Latino Teachers Association or the Long Island Black Educators Association, or offering targeted scholarships to students from diverse backgrounds (15%). As one program director shared, "We have a scholarship for emerging leaders of color that we give out once a year to all students of color in our program."

Diversity of the Aspiring Leader Pool

From our survey, we learned about the diversity of leadership preparation students served in 2023-24. On average, 60% of the institutions' leadership preparation students are white, 19% are African American, 14% are Hispanic, 2% are Asian-American, and 3% are other. In addition, 72% are female and 43% are from urban locations (see Table 6). These percentages were fairly comparable for public and private institutions (see Table 7).

These average percentages vary widely by region, with NYC and the Lower Hudson Valley having the lowest average percentage of students who were White, and Western New York having the highest. Almost 79% of the students in NYC programs are female, in contrast to 65-71% in the other regions. Almost all the students in NYC programs (88%) are urban, in contrast to 17-18% for institutions Upstate and on Long Island.

Relationship Analysis

We had wondered whether there were any institutional, program or student characteristics that were related to a programmatic emphasis of DEI content and instruction in the institutions' programs. We found, however, that there was no statistically significant relationship between DEI-related program attributes and student demographics or program measures of tuition rates and number of credits.

↑ Back to Table of Contents