Strengthening Diversity in School Leadership: A New York State Education Department Grant

Program Structure and Design

As a result of consultations, collaboration, and research findings, we confirmed that the Stony Brook combined School District Leader (SDL) and School Building Leader (SBL) online synchronous educational leadership program was the most effective delivery platform for this program. Candidates would be prepared for both building and district certifications within our unified program to increase their marketability.

Program Features

• As a result of the NYSED grant, program costs for the two enrolled cohorts of participants were significantly lowered.
• The grant supported educational leadership program included a curriculum that integrated the Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework skills for leadership development.
• Courses were delivered fully online with synchronous meetings and scheduled in accordance with public school calendars.
• The program employed adjunct instructors who have been scholar-practitioners and have successful careers in school or district leadership.
• All faculty have been adjunct, allowing selection of stellar school and district leaders from diverse backgrounds as well as regular stellar Stony Brook EDL adjunct faculty to serve as models for program participants.
• All syllabi have been enhanced around Stony Brook educational leadership program requirements, PSEL aligned, and employed components of the Regents Culturally Responsive Sustaining Education Framework to support and support the goals of the diverse leadership grant.
• Instructional experiences (specifically real-life/field work) have been designed to support participants success.
• The Stony Brook educational leadership program boasts a wide network of alumni from across New York State, which enhances opportunities for professional networking.

Internship Component

The internship component required 300 service hours split across the building and district levels with evidence that all ten PSEL standards have been addressed. Additionally, there were three internship projects identified as follows:

Task 1: School Improvement Project

A school improvement project that included a focus on English Language Learners, Students with Disabilities or another subgroup and follow up to assess impact.

Task 2: Professional Development Project

A professional development project that was based on a school or district documented need and included an evaluative component.

Task 3: COVID Equity Analysis Project

A project that analyzed data related to school or district inequities that became apparent as a result of COVID. The project developed support systems to ameliorate such inequities.

Internship Support Elements

The internship was designed to provide support and remove barriers to ensure the success of the interns. To this end several additional elements were added:

• Group and individual meetings were held with the cohort students prior to and during the internship experience. The purpose of these meetings was to assess any concerns or needs they might be experiencing and provide support as needed. These meetings also served to provide information about the internship responsibilities well in advance.
• In addition to the typical focus on preparing interns for the state certification exams, grant funds were utilized to provide students with a test review book and access to an online test review course.
• Interns were provided with an opportunity to take part in an authentic interview with an administrator and then provided feedback on both their interview documents (resume, cover letter) and interview performance.
• Four meetings were held with the interns' Cooperating Administrators, one prior to, and three during the internship. These meetings provided information for the Cooperating Administrators about the PSEL standards, the NYSED CRSE framework as well as details about internship requirements and best practices for supporting administrative interns.

Program Authorization

The Stony Brook educational leadership program has been authorized and approved by Stony Brook University, State University of New York (SUNY) and the New York State Education Department (NYSED), so that instruction is inclusive of the Professional Standards of Education Leadership (PSEL) (2015) and the CRSE Framework (2019).

↑ Back to Table of Contents

Program Demographics and Initial Findings

Program Demographics

Summary of Key Findings

• 100% of the cohort who applied to take the SBL or SDL licensing exam passed the examination. There have been NO failures. The Stony Brook pass rate for Spring 2025 on the SBL exam was 97.5% and 100% for the SDL. Therefore, the cohort equaled or surpassed the program pass rate!
• Cohort 2 coursework is ongoing. Graduation will take place in May 2026.
• All candidates will be eligible for the "Professional Administrator with Superintendent's Extension" licensure. One of the students was successfully employed in an administrative position prior to the completion of the internship.

We found that in addition to increasing the diversity of individuals in the pipeline, we saw a shift in thinking about what it means to lead with a different lens. This is illustrated in the student evaluative feedback on the program included in the following section.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

Program Challenges and Conclusions

Program Challenges

The districts/administrative supports represented in these cohorts seemed to have more challenges than other cohorts:

• Changes in Cooperating Administrators: Thirty percent of the interns had changes in their Cooperating Administrators prior to or early in the internship. Program response: This lack of stability in in-district support for interns illustrated the need for more support from the Stony Brook internship supervisor. Support was provided through additional individual meetings.
• Leaves of Absence and Withdrawals: Two interns requested a leave of absence. One indicated that there was significant turmoil in the district related to budget constraints and large staff lay-offs. That leave of absence turned into withdrawal from the program. The second requested a leave due to significant personal challenges. Program response: Coordinated effort was provided to both of these individuals to assess their individual situations and needs. Flexibility in program completion timelines (i.e., temporary leaves of absence) was provided as was encouragement to persevere where feasible. Thirty percent of the districts experienced unexpected Superintendent changes during the seven months of the internship.
• Grant-Funded Release Time Underutilized: Grant funds to provide additional release time for administrative interns were not able to be utilized for the most part. We worked diligently with participating interns' school districts who were unable to extend interns' administrative experience. For the most part, districts indicated they were unable to remove the intern from normally scheduled teaching responsibilities, and in addition, were unable to obtain qualified substitute coverage to extend candidates' internship experiences. Program response: This component of the grant was intended to provide additional flexibility and support for interns to acquire their necessary hours and have time during the work day to complete administrative tasks. However, all interns successfully achieved their hour requirement without this support. In the future, closer collaboration with district leadership well in advance of adding this component to the internship program is suggested.

Summary and Conclusions

• The academic program developed by instructors in the Education Leadership Program at Stony Brook in alignment with PSEL standards and modified to be inclusive of the concepts of the Culturally Responsive Sustaining Education Framework significantly supported student success (a significant number of candidates successfully passed one or both of the licensing examinations.)
• The online cohort model met the needs of this diverse pool of participants developing camaraderie and a sense of professional community amongst participants, reinforcing success for all.
• This online model also allowed for a cross section of participants from different geographic regions increasing an understanding of educational issues across urban, suburban, and rural as well as high needs and low need school communities better preparing them for leadership in a variety of settings.
• The combination of synchronous and asynchronous instruction allowed for flexibility in scheduling work, program and personal responsibilities. This increased accessibility for candidates who might not otherwise have been able to participate.
• The use of a pool of diverse faculty of successful practitioners as adjunct instructors provided students interaction with model practitioners and thought leaders in their respective positions as school and district leaders.
• Program experiences had value to participants in that those experiences were based on instructors' real life experiences. Students easily related to instructors who supported and encouraged their instructional success. In addition, there was an increased focus on removing barriers and employing support for the interns to ensure their success in the program.
• An embedded lens of equity and inclusiveness throughout the coursework led to interns having a deeper understanding of what inclusivity and equity look like in an educational setting.
• Grant funds to offset tuition and provide access to review material and preparation for mandated licensing exams increased participants' success.

↑ Back to Table of Contents