University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The role of leadership in a time of crisis: preventing, preparing for, and responding to crises on a school campus

(USC Thesis Other)

The role of leadership in a time of crisis: preventing, preparing for, and responding to crises on a school campus

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: Leadership in the Time of Crisis

THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP IN THE TIME OF CRISIS:
PREVENTING, PREPARING FOR, AND RESPONDING TO CRISES
ON A SCHOOL CAMPUS

By
Ruth A. Valadez
_________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2017

Copyright 2017 Ruth A. Valadez

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 2

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to two brilliant men who are no longer with me; to my Father,
Estanislao (Stanley) Valadez, who believed in me, encouraged and supported me, and provided
me the tools to be successful in life. He is, and forever will be my hero.
And, to Rodolfo (Rudy) Careaga, my beautiful and kind Cuban brother who taught me so much
and inspired me to never stop learning. I will forever love and miss him.
I also dedicate this study to the amazing Garcia men; Dr. Gary, Ruben, and Elias, whom have all
championed me as I juggled my roles of wife, mother, director, and student. I am appreciative of
their unending support and love, and for never complaining about me being absent for the last
two years. I am blessed to have each of them in my life.

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 3

Acknowledgements
My partner in crime, Debra Esquivel Schindel Bogle, has been a like a sister to me and I will
always treasure our journey together. She is worldly, resourceful, and an angel. I would have
been hard-pressed to complete this study without the support of my USC Cohort who provided
constant positive reinforcement since our first day together. I am thankful to have met these
wonderful scholars. I am pleased to recognize my professors at USC who have all been
encouraging and inspiring, most notably my Dissertation Chair, Dr. Pedro Garcia. Thank you to
Dr. Rudy Castruita, my second Dissertation Chair, and to Dr. Oryla Marie Wiedofft, who
selflessly gave of her time and guidance as my third Dissertation Chair. Appreciation abounds
for the anonymous principals who participated in the dissertation survey, and particularly to
those six outstanding school leaders who took the time to allow me to interview them. I am
grateful for their support and for their willingness to share their expertise. Recognition is well
deserved for my besties Ana, Diane, Veronica, Melinda, and Terry, who stuck with me despite
not seeing me for two years, but all the while giving me encouragement. Thank you to my
DUSD homies for their constant kindness, particularly Reynaldo Vargas, Jr. for his mad
computer skills. And finally, a heartfelt thank you to CM who has been my cheerleader and who
led me through the dark times-for which I am forever grateful.

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 4

Abstract
Disasters on school campuses can occur at any time and school leaders must be prepared to
handle a variety of potential emergencies to protect their campuses. Research identifies
definitive steps that can be taken to decrease the chances of school crises. This mixed methods
study focused on current research and on the beneficial practices that veteran school leaders in
California have identified and implemented to address the prevention, preparation for, and
response to school emergencies. There were four research questions for this study: (1) From a
school leader’s perspective what has been learned about preventing crises on school campuses?;
(2) How have school district leaders learned to prepare for crises on school campuses; (3) From a
school leader’s perspective, what has been learned about responding to crises on a school
campus?; (4) How do school leaders plan for individuals with special needs (language or
communication differences, physical and/or cognitive disabilities) in a time of crisis? The
methodology included a web-based survey of California principals, and interviews with six of
those principals who represented schools of diverse sizes and socio-economic communities. The
study found that the literature is framed in a macro perspective of the individual components of
school safety, offering broad-based strategies on how to protect students and staff before, during,
and after a disaster. Experienced school principals focus on these perspectives, but also operate
from a micro standpoint in that it is their understanding of the needs of the school community
that is the foundation of successful school safety plans. This study demonstrates that the
characterization of effective school leadership during a time of crisis requires leadership skills in
both the macro and micro perspectives.
Keywords: school safety, school emergencies, school crises, crisis prevention, crisis
preparedness, crisis response, school leadership
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 5

List of Figures
Figure 1. Applied Frameworks 48
Figure 2. Survey Question One 121
Figure 3. Survey Question Two 121
Figure 4. Survey Question Three 122
Figure 5. Survey Question Four 122
Figure 6. Survey Question Five 123
Figure 7. Survey Question Six 123
Figure 8. Survey Question Seven 124
Figure 9. Survey Question Eight 124
Figure 10. Survey Question Nine 125
Figure 11. Survey Question Ten 125
Figure 12. Survey Question Eleven 126
Figure 13. Survey Question Twelve 126
Figure 14. Survey Question Thirteen 127
Figure 15. Survey Question Fourteen 127
Figure 16. Survey Question Fifteen 128
Figure 17. Survey Question Sixteen 128
Figure 18. Survey Question Seventeen 129
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 6

Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 4
List of Figures 5
Preface 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Background of the Problem 9
Statement of the Problem 12
Propose of the Study 13
Significance of the Study 15
Limitations and Delimitations 16
Definition of Terms 16
Organization of the Study 22
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 23
Introduction 23
Preventing Crises on School Campuses 24
Preparing for Crises on School Campuses 33
Responding to Crises on School Campuses 40
The Aftermath 44
Synthesis of Literature Review 45
Presentation of Theories 46
Constructivist Theory 46
Social Reconstructionism Theory 47
Transformative Worldview 47
Summary 48
Chapter Three: Methodology 50
Restatement of the Purpose of the Study and the Research Questions 50
Sample and Population 53
Instrumentation 54
Data Collection 57
Survey 57
Interviews 58
Documents 58
Coding 59
Data Analysis 59
Chapter Four: Presentation of Findings 61
Overview 61
Research Questions 61
General Features of the Research 62
District Demographics 62
Participant Demographics 63
Data Collection Process 63

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 7

Findings 67
Research Question One 67
Research Question Two 70
Research Question Three 74
Research Question Four 78
Discussion 81
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations 90
Summary 90
Restatement of the Problem 91
Purpose of the Study 91
Interpretation of Key Findings 92
Summary of Results 93
Research Question One 93
Research Question Two 94
Research Question Three 95
Research Question Four 96
Recommendations for Policy and Practice 97
Recommendation One 97
Recommendation Two 97
Recommendation Three 97
Recommendation Four 98
Recommendations for Further Research 98
Participant Sample of the Study 98
Methodology of the Study 98
Future Studies 99
Limitations 99
Conclusion 100
References 103
Appendix A – Principal Survey Protocol 113
Appendix B – Principal Survey Questions 114
Appendix C – Principal Interview Protocol 116
Appendix D – Principal Interview Questions 118
Survey Question Results – Figures 2-18 121

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 8

Preface
The first three chapters of this dissertation were coauthored by two doctoral candidates,
Ruth Valadez and Debra Bogle. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most
doctoral programs, a collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their
objective of developing highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges,
the USC Graduate School and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry
team to carry out this shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project driven by a passion and commitment to
provide school districts with a comprehensive blueprint to create and foster safe school
campuses. Within a Constructivist framework, it is critical that meaning be created through the
engagement of a range of participants and social paradigms. As such, the process of identifying
effective school safety practices can be enhanced when approached by multiple researchers.
Both Debra Bogle and I separately pursued data throughout California on what experienced
school leaders have found to be effective in keeping their schools safe to produce mutually
contributive safety resources. As result, both dissertations provide corresponding relevant and
vital information for school districts.

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 9

Leadership in the Time of Crisis:
Preventing, Preparing for, and Responding to Crises on a School Campus

CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Background of the Problem
Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Snohomish High School, East Chapel Hill High
School; all names of schools that are recognizable for incidents of senseless violence. The acts
of school shootings, as well as other kinds of threats and crises have significantly escalated in
recent years (Newman & Fox, 2009). Catastrophic environmental occurrences such as
earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters have also caused substantial problems
for school communities throughout the nation (Boon et al., 2011). Currently, no national model
of school-based crisis preparedness exists (Boon et al., 2011; Clarke et al., 2014) and as a result,
school districts within the United States have rarely devoted the time and resources necessary to
systematically implement preventative measures, prepare for potential catastrophic situations,
and to respond effectively to emergencies once they have occurred (Clarke et al., 2014).
Disasters can occur at any time or place, regardless of the socioeconomic status of a
community or the location of a school facility. Students and school staff are progressively more
vulnerable to violence or other catastrophic events when districts have not taken a strategic stand
with respect to the safety of all individuals on their campuses (Creapeau-Hobson & Summers,
2011). In California, students participate in earthquake and fire drills as a matter of course, but
spend little to no time practicing for any other type of emergency (Kano & Bourque, 2007).
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 10

Although 86.3 percent of the nation’s school districts reported that they have disaster plans, only
30 percent of those districts have actually conducted a drill as associated with these plans.
Additionally, approximately 25 percent of districts indicated that their plans do not include
provisions for students or adults on their campuses with special needs (Clarke et al., 2014)
despite California Education Code that requires this provision. California Ed Code § 32282 (a)
states… “The comprehensive school safety plan should include, but not be limited to” … § (b)
“disaster procedures, routine and emergency, including adaptations for pupils with disabilities
in accordance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec.12101 et
seq.)” (California Legislative Information, 2016).
Ultimately, the responsibility for the well-being of students and staff on school sites lies
with those who administrate the campus, however, it has been demonstrated that at times, it is
critical to have a team of school employees who are knowledgeable and ready to lead, should
that be necessary (Creapeau-Hobson & Summers, 2011). This perspective is recurrent in
research and as seen in the real-life aftermath of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary
School in Connecticut. In this situation, the principal was one of the first victims to be taken
down by the lone shooter, and consequently was unable to provide support or directives to the
classrooms full of students and their teachers as they faced a gunman who methodically
murdered nearly thirty children and staff (O’Meara, 2014).
Community partners such as police, emergency medical teams, and firefighters may be
summoned to address crises on campuses, however, it is vital that staff working at a school site
be able to protect themselves and save as many other lives as possible, prior to the arrival of any
community support services (Clarke et al., 2014). Preparation for school crises includes ensuring
that staff are knowledgeable about creating and maintaining a culture of safety, and possess the
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 11

ability to implement identified plans of action once a crisis has occurred (Creapeau-Hobson &
Summers, 2011). For example, during the rushed evacuations for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in
Florida and Louisiana in 2005, over 5,000 students were displaced from their families. It took
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children who ultimately stepped in to provide
assistance to the states, a full 18 months to reunite each of the children with their families (Boon
et al., 2011).
In every instance of the school shootings having occurred within the United States and
elsewhere, the subject of the mental health of the perpetrators has been consistently raised (Skiba
et al., 2000). Case studies and information provided through media on the background of the
student shooters unfailingly revealed that they were each considered troubled, had experienced
bullying, and/or had been previously diagnosed with some form of mental illness (Raywid &
Oshiyama, 2000). These facts underscore the necessity for schools, families, and communities to
have an awareness of the indicators associated with students involved with bullying (as the
perpetrator or the victim), and of those who are at-risk for, or currently experiencing mental
health problems.
Schools can purposefully work to create a healthy climate and culture of caring and other
virtues on their campuses (Cohen et al., 2009). When students and staff are emotionally healthy
and have access to the resources needed to support them in times of need and there are fewer
opportunities for detrimental manifestations to follow (Cowan & Paine, 2013). The
establishment of an environment where an awareness of the emotional needs of students by the
adult staff should be a common objective for school leaders. Additionally, the provision of
access to effective services and programs such as counseling, Positive Behavioral Intervention
Supports (PBIS), and social skills groups can assist leaders with the building of a milieu that
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 12

fosters and perpetuates the healthy emotional well-being of students and staff on a campus
(Cowan & Paine, 2013). Research on the efficacy of these preventative programs and services
exists, and is more robust than the data of the effectiveness of the utilization of solely
technology-based school safety options such as video surveillance cameras and metal detectors
(Skiba et al., 2000).
A related area of concern involves the safety and protection of individuals who may
experience increased vulnerability in times of crisis, such as those with language differences or
cognitive and/or physical challenges which could prevent them from understanding or following
emergency procedures, therefore further endangering their lives and the lives of those who assist
them (Boon et al., 2011). And, there may be students, staff, or school campus visitors who may
understand emergency directives, but not be physically capable of complying. The unique needs
of all individuals must to be taken into consideration when planning for a safe school campus
(Clarke et al., 2014).
Statement of the Problem
Emergency situations can happen anywhere at any time, and it is critical that schools
prepare and plan to the fullest extent possible to ensure the protection of all individuals on
campus. School districts across the nation are woefully underprepared in keeping students and
staff safe (Kano & Bourque, 2007). Research postulates that schools must be proactive in the
safety and security of students and staff, which would include comprehensive plans in the areas
of preventing crises, planning for crises, and responding to crises (Kano & Bourque, 2007). The
goal for school communities is to implement effective practices to mitigate the possibility and
impact of a catastrophic event, and to subsequently decrease the need for a response (Boon et al.,
2011). This study focuses on the beneficial practices that school districts in California have
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 13

identified and implemented to address the prevention, preparation for, and response to school
crises. For the purposes of this study, the term “crisis” refers to a significant event or emergency
occurring on a school campus, or a related event having a critical impact on a school community
such as a credible threat to the safety of those on a campus, severe injury or death of a student of
a staff member, an act of violence, or a catastrophic environmental event.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify the current practices of school leaders which they
consider to be effective with respect to how preventive programs, staff and student preparation,
and responsive procedures have been executed to maintain and increase the safety and well-
being of all individuals on a school campus. A comprehensive outline for schools for the
prevention, preparation of, and response to school crises is presented, based upon the
identification of meaningful practices of selected schools within the state of California. This
plan is inclusive of the needs of individuals with language differences and/or disabilities which
may serve as barriers to their own well-being, and to the protection for those individuals who
support these populations during a time of crisis.
Current research concentrates on particular practices, actual or recommended, for schools
primarily focusing discretely on specific phases of the process relating to a potential crisis,
including creating a safe campus and a culture of strong character (preventing), training staff and
students and establishing crisis teams (preparing), and implementing an emergency response
model which involves coordination with community partners (responding). What can be added
to this conversation is a detailed study inclusive of recommended practices that can be
implemented prior to, during, and following an actual crisis, which would be beneficial to all
individuals on a school campus.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 14

This mixed methods study consisted of a survey with 17 questions for school leaders
from K-12 public school districts within the state of California. This was followed up by
personal interviews of 6 school leaders, who agreed to meet in person following the survey.
School safety related documents were requested of the participants to augment the data gathered
through the surveys and interviews.
The following research questions guided this study:
1. From a school leader’s perspective, what has been learned about practices focused on
preventing crises on school campuses?
2. How have school district leaders learned to prepare for crises on school campuses?
3. From a school leader’s perspective, what has been learned about responding to crises
on a school campus?
4. How do school leaders plan for individuals with special needs and/or language
differences in a time of crisis?
Through a primarily Constructivist framework, this study was an activity in continuous
learning based upon the prior knowledge and real-world experiences of school leaders. Themes
were identified throughout the research and meaningful conclusions were drawn as a result of the
active, problem-based learning process. The project was driven by culturally relevant activities,
while the investigation was conducted in conjunction with a survey and interview process, and a
thorough review of documents provided by six principals.
Three assumptions guided the literature review for this study (Skiba et al., 2000). They
are as follows:
1. Violence can be prevented.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 15

2. There is no single system to make schools safe.
3. Ongoing planning and commitment are critical for school safety.
There is no guarantee that emergencies will not occur on school campuses. However,
research has demonstrated that preventative actions can make a difference in lowering the
number of particular types of major incidents, such as school violence, which was why these
assumptions were utilized. Furthermore, a variety of practices which reflect current community
needs can be significantly effective in keeping schools safe (Skiba et al., 2000). As with the
implementation of any new skill set, responses to emergency situations are more efficacious
when individuals are knowledgeable, comfortable, and proficient in the areas in which they need
to perform (Skiba et al., 2000).
Significance of the Study
This study adds to the body of scholarly literature by identifying and linking effective
practices in the prevention, preparation for, and response to crises which can occur on a school
campus. It provides guidance from veteran school leaders to school districts beyond what may be
found in a standard school safety plan, as it addresses individuals with special needs, as well as
situations that may arise which may be uncommon, but extremely relevant with regard to school
safety. These situations may include, but not be limited to, a credible threat, a significant event
causing severe injuries, a medical emergency, an act of violence such as school shooting, or a
disastrous environmental occurrence.
The findings within the study have the potential to provide critical guidance to school
districts in the area of campus safety prior to, during, and after a school emergency event to
better prepare school staffs with the responsibility of ensuring the well-being of all individuals
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 16

on a school site. Furthermore, this study provides specific practices which may decrease the
percentage of injuries or deaths which can occur as a result of a credible threat or a catastrophic
event striking a school campus.
Limitations and Delimitations
The study incorporated the following limitations:
1. The validity of the data was reliant upon the chosen instruments of measurement.
2. The ability to gain access to school leaders.
3. The ability and willingness of school leaders to provide accurate responses.
4. The rate of return of surveys from school leaders.
The study incorporated the following delimitations:
1. Data collection was limited to school leaders within California K-12 public school
districts.
2. Interviews were limited to 6 school leaders whose tenure in an administrative
position has been more than 3 years.
3. Surveys were sent to 118 school leaders within the state of California.

Definitions of Terms
Capacity Building-The conceptual approach to personal development that focuses on enhancing
the ability of an individual or an organization to be effective and achieve measurable and
sustainable results.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 17

Catastrophic Events-Disruptive emergencies, both natural and man-made that negatively impact
a school community and beyond.
Coding-A method of organizing data into sections to facilitate the development of themes and
understanding of the research.
Community Resources-Individuals, groups, or agencies which have the potential to support,
improve, serve, and integrate into the life of a community.
Constructivism-An epistemological stance largely influenced by Jean Piaget, a prominent
theorist who considered the interaction in relation to how humans are set up by their genetic
make-up to develop intellectually. Constructivism focuses on what is going on with the
individual’s development in context of the social world to include sociocultural or socio-
historical perspectives. The learner’s ability to learn relies to a large extent to what he already
knows and understands and knowledge is an individually tailored process.
Crisis-Refers to a significant event or emergency occurring on a school campus, or a related
event having a critical impact on a school community, such as a potential or actual threat, a
severe injury or death of a student or a staff member, an act of violence, or a catastrophic
environmental episode.
Cross-Sectional Approach-The collection of data all at one time, as opposed to over a period of
time.
Cultural Scripts-Patterns of interaction unique to a particular culture which articulate cultural
norms, values, and practices.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 18

Cyberbullying-The act of using electronic communications to harass, intimidate or hurt someone,
often times done anonymously.
Disabilities/Special Needs-A physical, cognitive, or emotional impairment that impacts the
performance of major life activities.
Emergencies- Unexpected or unforeseen, serious, dangerous situations, or crisis events requiring
immediate action or reaction.
Emergency Drill-A method of purposeful practice reacting to a hypothetical crisis event.
Effective drills are realistic, interactive, and moderately stressful exercises structured to simulate
an actual emergency.
Emergency Plan- Predetermined actions taken for the purpose of efficient and immediate
coordinated deployment of personnel and actions to provide an effective response.
Emergency Procedures-Plans or sets of actions engaged with a specific order or manner in
response to an emergency.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-A federal agency which addresses disaster
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery, and education related to disaster situations.
Grounded Theory- An inductive methodology which allows for the development of a philosophy
that offers and explains the concept of a research topic.
Incident Command System (ICS)-A crisis team model established by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security and utilized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Individual Emergency and Lockdown Plan (IELP)-Individual student crisis plans which are
created to support student safety during a crisis while at school.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 19

Individual Educational Program (IEP)-A document developed for every child who receives
special education services which identifies a student’s strengths, areas of need, and goals for the
upcoming school year.
Institutional Review Board (IRB)-A committee within a university system formally designated to
approve and monitor research conducted by doctoral students within the university.
Interview-A process used when seeking to find meanings and generate central themes in serving
to understand a concept. A qualitative interview seeks to cover both factual and meaningful or
in-depth information around a topic or research.
Mixed Methods Study Design-A research design which includes both qualitative and quantitative
research data, methods, and paradigms. A Mixed Methods design provides multiple
perspectives, methodologies, and paradigms which serve to improve research as a whole.
Phenomenological Theory- A qualitative analysis of narrative data and methods used to analyze
information that is collected via interview to gather participant’s self-reported experiences.
Participants are encouraged to describe their feelings, thoughts, and memories. This emergent
theory allows meaning of an experience to develop. Themes emerge and are then analyzed.
Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS)-A framework utilizing evidence-based
behavioral interventions to enhance academic and social behavioral outcomes for all students.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)-A disorder that develops following a shocking, scary, or
dangerous event, which produces stress and fear in individuals, even when they are not actually
in danger.
Preparing for a Crisis-To anticipate and have systems and services in-place to address a crisis.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 20

Preventing a Crisis-To establish a culture, implement training, systems and services with the
objective of avoiding a potential crisis.
Professional Development-Intensive formal or informal coursework, workshops, or other
learning opportunities derived from professional practice to build a skill base in a particular area.
Purposeful Sampling-A type of non-probability sampling of research participants used in
qualitative research to identify and select information-rich issues or cases of a specific
phenomenon
Qualitative Research-Exploratory research used to gain an understanding of underlying reasons,
perspectives, and motivations. It provides insights into a research problem.
Quantitative Research-Research that produces hard facts and statistics to provide guidance in
addressing a research problem.
Reliability-The degree to which an assessment tool produces stable and consistent results.
Responding to a Crisis-How a school reacts to a crisis through actions designed to protect
students and adults on a school campus after an emergency event has occurred.
Restorative Justice – A counseling program utilizing dialogue within a circle format as a
proactive practice to prevent conflict, and also used as a response to conflict.
School Community-Refers to myriad of individuals, groups, stakeholders, businesses, and other
institutions either within or beyond the campus that are invested in the welfare, safety, and
vitality of a school.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 21

School Counselors-School staff professionals who support the social/emotional and academic
development of students by designing, implementing, and engaging curriculum that is centered
on the needs of the students.
School Leaders-Individuals who are responsible for departments or school sites within a school
district, including, but not limited to, superintendents, directors, principals, or other
administrators. For the purpose of this study, school leaders refer explicitly to school site
principals.
School Psychologists-School staff professionals who support the ability of students to learn and
grow through applied behavioral analysis of socio-emotional needs, as well as supporting student
academic success within a school environment. Psychologists are qualified to assess, diagnose,
and treat disorders.
School Violence-Any form of physical or emotionally aggressive activities that occur within the
school campus. This may include, but is not limited to: bullying, shootings, verbal assaults, or
other forms of intimidation.
SEMS- Standardized Emergency Management System. The system is the cornerstone of
California’s emergency response system. This is a structure for the response phase of emergency
management unifying all elements of California’s emergency management community into a
single integrated system or network.
Survey-The process of gathering information about how a particular topic or topics are perceived.
Threat-A person or action likely to cause danger or damage.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 22

Threat Assessment-An evaluation to determine the level of risk an individual has for hurting
themselves or others.
Triangulation-The examination of data through more than one source to add to the validity of a
study.
Validity-The degree that an assessment tool measures what it claims to measure. Validity is
equated with accuracy and stability, and/or consistent test results.
Worldview-A framework or perspective of beliefs that serve to guide an individual’s actions.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides an overview of the
study, inclusive of an introduction, background, and a statement of the problem, as well as the
purpose and importance of the study. The second chapter is the review of literature of the topic
of the study with a presentation of theories. Chapter Three describes the methodology used in
the research and outlines the instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis procedures
employed. The results of the findings of this study are found in Chapter Four, along with
reflections on the suppositions and insights as to the meaning of the findings. The final chapter
provides a summary of the conclusions of the findings and the implications for future practice.
Research limitations and the need for future research as related to the topic of crises in the
schools are also discussed within Chapter Five.

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 23

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction
The need for systemic practices, policies, training, and knowledge to ensure that all
individuals on a school campus are safe during a time of crisis is critical. Lives can be saved
when emergency procedures and systems are purposefully established and implemented in
school settings (McNeely, Nonnemaker & Blum, 2002). In addition to a skill-base specific to
addressing threats and emergencies on school campuses, competency in the area of leadership is
also crucial for effective operational planning and proficient implementation of practices that
promote a secure school site. It should be noted that the qualities of a school leader required
during a time of crisis are fundamentally different than the skills needed for the day-to-day
operations of a school campus. School leaders who possess distinctive traits, attributes, and
experiences can develop a healthy and safe campus culture, adequately prepare for emergencies,
as well as acquire the knowledge and skills to effectively respond to crises on their school sites
(Smith & Riley, 2012). A vital objective for a school leader should include the ability to create
a culture of safety, achieve calm among students and staff during a time of crisis, and to
effectively respond to a crisis which will allay the anxiety and fear post-crisis. (The National
Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2005).
Social media, news organizations, newspapers, and magazines showcase in detail all
aspects of incidents that impact the safety of students on a school campus, particularly after a
significant event has occurred. Speculations are publically made as to the climate of the campus,
security of the classrooms, and the mental health of the perpetrator(s) in the aftermath of an
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 24

emergency episode (Cohen et al., 2009). In retrospect of these events, school leaders and staff
have identified systems, procedures, and tangible physical barriers that had they been put in
place, may have deterred the crisis event. The current dialogue with respect to schools attending
to the whole child (and not just to academics), ensuring the extensive training of staff, and the
designing of campuses which impede strangers from entering may at one time have been viewed
as extreme, but given the number of catastrophic incidents that have occurred on schools
campuses, this perspective can presently be perceived as sensible, and as a necessity. (Cohen et
al, 2009).
When considering the subject of how to effectively address school crises, it is practical to
study and connect the actions and procedures that can be engaged prior to an event (preventing
and preparing), as well as during an event (responding). Approaching the topic in this manner
allows for an understanding of how and when identifiable practices are implemented can
promote a safe campus, as well as provide a holistic perspective of a comprehensive plan to
decrease the chances of a crisis, and to handle an emergency with expertise, should one occur.
As such, the literature review in this chapter is organized by each the research questions which
address practices related to the preventing, preparation for, and response to a school-based crisis.
Additionally, research relating to the provision of practice, support, and services dedicated to
addressing the needs of those on a school campus with language differences and/or special needs
during the time of crisis will also be examined.
Preventing Crises on School Campuses
When creating any program or project from the beginning, it is general practice to think
both holistically and prospectively about the needs of the program and of potential pitfalls, and to
subsequently build-in provisions which address these areas. With schools that have long been in
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 25

existence, leaders experience a more challenging time generating changes in established cultures,
instituting novel practices, and having to think in new ways based upon events that have
occurred, in order to promote the development of new systems and procedures to maintain safety
(Cohen et al., 2009).
Cohen et al. (2009) propose that the creation of a positive school climate may lead to a
decrease or a possible prevention of school violence. The authors suggest that school climate
represents the quality and character of school life on campus, which includes not only the
learning aspects within the school, but also the relationships between those on the campus, and
the school environment. Consequently, school climate is an amalgamation of values of
individuals, collective school experiences, relationships, and learning practices-it is a group
experience beyond the sole experiences of the leader of the school (Cohen et al., 2009). Given
this principle, to create a paradigm shift within a school culture as a movement toward a secure
campus, school leaders would need to craft and implement a wide-reaching, comprehensive plan
which would comprise creating experiences, building relationships, and teaching and
maintaining selected practices and behaviors in order to systematically establish a culture that
authentically promotes a safe environment. Realistically, school leaders may not have the vision,
depth of knowledge, experience, support from their superintendents and Board of Trustees, and
the time required, given their vast responsibilities, to devote to the creation of such a
comprehensive plan. As a result, gaps exist between what is recommended by researchers, and
what practices actually occur regarding positive school climate nationwide on school campuses
(Cohen et al., 2009).
Jonathan C. Erwin (2016), who bases his belief on William Glasser’s Choice Theory of
Behavior, advises that the school climate solution should encompass the reduction of disciplinary
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 26

issues in a campus (including bullying), the increase of graduation and attendance rates, and the
improvement of learning and achievement. As an example of a beginning step toward this
objective, many school districts have implemented the Character Counts! program and have
produced evidence that this character building curriculum has resulted in a significant drop in
school suspensions and expulsions, while demonstrating an increase in student, parent, and
teacher satisfaction. This data is supported by an escalation in student engagement and academic
achievement, as seen in several school districts which have implemented this program with
fidelity, thereby creating safer school environments (Character Counts, 2016).
Underlining the importance of addressing discontentment and conflict on campuses
would be that the majority of school shootings have been perpetuated by students who were
reported to be disgruntled with teachers or policies, and/or who had been bullied by other
students (O’Neill et al., 2008). These situations led to students responding to their emotions
through violence when perhaps, had some practices and supports been in place, these students
would have utilized alternative strategies and chosen an another outlet for their emotions, rather
than one which led to the situation escalating to the level of shooting others on campus.
While creating a school climate that promotes harmony is essential, it’s also critical to
identify potentially violent students as early as possible (Harwood, 2007). To recognize the
likelihood of a student committing a violent crime, it’s necessary to look at their personality
traits and behavior, family dynamics, school dynamics and the student’s role in those dynamics,
and social dynamics, as a part of a threat assessment program. However, it’s important to keep
in mind that standards for threatening behavior do not exist, and privacy issues may hamper what
can be done with the information gathered (Harwood, 2007). Individuals or teams that carry out
threat assessments require intensive training to implement the skills necessary to be effective.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 27

These individuals must have an understanding of, and be able to address the multiple levels of
characteristics associated with individuals who have the ideation of hurting themselves or others.
These practices also involve rigorous evaluations that recognize and measures changes in
behaviors (DeGue, 2014).
When discussing prevention practices in relation to school safety, it’s also relevant to
consider the security of the actual physical campus, in addition to violence prevention strategies
and the school climate. Safety measures are clearly necessary, although care should be taken to
not establish excessive school security, as this may serve to undermine the sense of safety and
well-being held by some staff and students (Cowan & Paine, 2013; Madfis, 2013). Therefore,
school leaders may want to study the perceptions of students associated with particular types of
school safety measures, as there is evidence that certain students, such as those who have
experienced prior victimizations, may actually perceive to feel less safe in a school setting where
some of the more commonly used safety structures have been implemented. Alternatively,
school administrators can consider the implementation of an array of practical physical measures
which can include visitor check-in/check-out systems, locked doors, alarm systems, metal
detectors, and monitored hallways and walkways which may serve to deter and decrease threats
and violence (Cowan & Paine, 2013).
When students feel unsafe on campus, they may limit the areas on the site in which they
travel, or they could take a more defensive perspective and carry weapons for self-protection
(Perumean-Chaney & Sutton, 2012). Either way, having students on a school campus who feel
vulnerable limits their ability to fully access their educational program, and could possibly
increase the chances of school violence (Perumean-Chaney & Sutton, 2012).
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 28

School campuses have a variety of professionals with unique skills and experiences
which can be applied to create and implement practices that promote safety. Specifically,
teachers, counselors, and school psychologists can provide instruction through curriculum which
address social skills, and conflict resolution and/or violence prevention skills (Skiba et al., 2000).
Evidence exists on the effectiveness of these types of programs which promote positive changes
in student attitude and behavior, including teacher reports of reduced physical violence and
increased student cooperation, in addition to lower suspension and drop-out rates (Character
Counts, 2016; Skiba et al., 2000). Moreover, students can be trained in peer mediation to learn
skills in peaceably settling disagreements and assisting their peers during times of conflict in
formulating solutions, rather than blaming others. Although constructing a new paradigm is a
complicated and laborious project, it can improve campus climate, while also improving self-
esteem and academic achievement for those students who serve as peer mediators (Skiba et al.,
2000). Improved classroom management, bullying prevention programs, social skills groups,
and groups for other targeted behaviors can be significant in managing and/or teaching more
desirable behaviors which ultimately build character and increase harmony while also decreasing
aggression and violence (Charactercounts.org; Erwin, 2016; Skiba et al., 2000).
As part of an effort to create a culture and climate focused on preventing crises, it is
relevant to recognize and address the role of the student by-stander. Environments in which
students have trust in school staff promote communication and positive behaviors by those
students who are aware of potential threats, or who witness behaviors that are dangerous or that
can lead to serious situations (Madfis, 2013). Conversely, when students demonstrate a lack of
positive by-stander behavior by not sharing critical information, their adherence to a code of
silence can potentially contribute to the level and frequency of campus violence or other tragic
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 29

situations. The culture of a school can directly impact how a student will respond when
threatened, or when having knowledge of their peers being endangered or hurt (Madfis, 2013).
Establishing a culture of trust can be an overwhelming task, as students may have a multitude of
reasons why they would not intervene in circumstances in which they or their peers are
threatened (Syvertsen et al., 2009). However, since the act of coming forward with information
can preempt countless occurrences, including those which could be fatal, it is vital that this group
of students be considered and served when creating a climate to prevent a school crisis (Madfis,
2013).
Mental health staff can also provide significant interventions for students who are at-risk
or who have mental health issues, thus potentially increasing the safety of school campuses
(Pace, 2014). Students with emotional disturbances are more than three times likely than their
typical peers to be suspended or expelled during their school careers for actions that may
endanger themselves or others (NASP, 2016a). In 2011, the state of California realigned the
provision of out-patient mental health services for students by shifting the responsibility for these
services from the Department of Mental Health to the school districts. Identified at-risk students
who are considered a highly vulnerable group, currently receive mental health counseling from
school personnel or from staff contracted by schools (Connell et al., 2015). Since the
realignment of this law, many schools in California now have social workers or other mental
health trained staff on site available to provide student and family counseling, eliminating the
need for parents to schedule therapy appointments in a separate setting for their children and
themselves during after school hours (Connell et al., 2015).
Furthermore, when considering the mental health needs of a school site, it’s essential to
be aware that more than 25 percent of students have witnessed a serious traumatic event by the
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 30

time they are 16 years of age. This same percentage of children who are victims of violence will
ultimately develop post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or anxiety disorders (Pace, 2014).
Traumatic experiences also lead to lower reading achievement, IQ scores, grade point averages,
and increased drop-out rates (Katoka, 2012). Given these facts, it is clear that the social workers
and psychologists on school campuses can serve as a form of intervention by providing
screenings and treatment for students susceptible to conditions that can lead to a crisis situation
for the student in need, as well as for those around the student at school and within the
community (Pace, 2014; Wong, 2008).
School counselors, in addition to school psychologists and social workers are also
trained to serve in a role to prevent school violence and improve school climate. Counselors can
provide preventive counseling services designed to decrease the incidences of specific problems
typically exhibited among the youth population (D’Andrea, 2004). Researchers have found that
school counselors who utilize primary and secondary counseling strategies can effectively
promote the mental health and psychological well-being of large numbers of students in a cost-
effective manner. Primary counseling focuses on promoting mental health with a population not
identified as having any psychological difficulties at a given time, as well as concentrating on
lowering the incidents of various psychological problems. Secondary counseling is concerned
with the early identification and treatment of problems (D’Andrea, 2004). These types of
services which directly support positive environments on school campuses are purposefully
designed to assist students in the development of necessary and healthy life skills (Daniels et al.,
2007).
Supplemental to creating a safer school site through the process of proactively
constructing a positive climate, secure facilities, and the utilizing the expertise of staff to support
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 31

and guide students; school leaders can also employ additional strategies which can help build the
foundation for more secure campuses. Based upon the review of multiple case studies, it is
possible for school administrators to further protect their students and staff by training students
in appropriate and respectful internet use, and to fully investigate all allegations of cyberbullying
as they occur. Cyberbullying, like offline bullying, can result in producing harmful emotions
such as embarrassment, fear, sadness, depression, and anger (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013).
Continuous experiences of victimization through cyberbullying are directly correlated with high
risks of depression (NASP, 2016a). Moreover, sustained exposure to cyberbullying has also
been associated with more extreme forms of psychosocial and behavioral consequences which
include drug use, aggression, fighting, suicidal ideation, carrying a weapon, and dropping out of
school, thereby creating a potentially unsafe campus (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013).
To further address the issue of prevention of catastrophic events on campuses, schools
can implement suicide prevention programs which are comprised of screening and therapy
components to mitigate the rate of suicide (Stein et al., 2010). This is particularly relevant, given
that suicide is the third leading cause of death for middle and high school students, and as a
result, the majority of public schools in the nation currently have suicide prevention programs in
place (Stein et al., 2010). It’s critical that staff are highly knowledgeable about identifying
students at risk, and that those students and their parents feel comfortable to seek help within the
school setting (Stein et al., 2010).
Not every crisis on a school campus is associated with an act of violence or an
environmental event, but instead may be a result of a medical situation sometimes triggered by
school related sports or physical activity (Casa et al., 2012). These tragic incidents which can
include asthma attacks, heat stroke, brain and spine injuries, cardiac arrest, and other medical
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 32

situations can cause sudden death in students and adults. Therefore, with the intent of
maintaining student and staff safety, schools can proactively work to prevent as many of these
occurrences as possible. Casa et al., (2012) advocate that all school sports personnel, as well as
additional staff be adequately trained in the recognition and treatment of critical medical
situations and have emergency plans in place, should an incident occur. These researchers
recommend that all campus sports personnel be trained in CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation)
and receive frequent in-services on specific medical conditions, in conjunction to receiving
training in the use of an automated external defibrillator (Casa et al., 2012).
A final identification of prevention strategies addressed that can be implemented to create
safer campuses involves the recognition of how the use of social media and cultural products by
students can be predictors of potential catastrophic events (Kiilakoshi & Oksanen, 2011; Patton
et al., 2014). Often, in retrospect of an incident, online clues to the internal thought processes
and intent of a student who has committed suicide or homicide appear obvious after the fact.
The perpetrators may have intentionally left on-line postings, videos, and documents which
could offer some explanation of how they were feeling and what might have occurred that
brought them to the point of hurting or killing themselves or others (Kiilakoshi & Oksanen,
2011). Social media has also served as a means to achieve acts of violence against others (Patton
et al., 2014). The ability for school district leaders to access these cultural scripts of postings,
photos, videos, etc. can potentially create an opportunity for staff to uncover and to intervene
upon a student’s plan to harm themselves or someone else (Newman & Fox, 2009).
There are clearly a multitude of practices for schools to implement when laying the
groundwork for creating a campus culture which promotes safety. Prevention strategies are most
effective when based upon best practices and the soundest available evidence. The practices
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 33

identified within this paper should be implemented consistently with fidelity, and should include
rigorous evaluation measures (De Gue, 2014). Whether confronting potential threats or actual
incidents of threats, sexual violence, suicides, homicides, accidents, or natural disasters, it is
critical that school districts utilize strategies and practices that are data driven and which can
ultimately protect and save the lives of the students and staff on a school campus. Research
confirms that consistency and commitment are vital, as there is an established correlation
between how often a concept or a curriculum is taught, and how often a student demonstrates the
desired behaviors (Skiba et al., 2000).
Preparing for Crises on School Campuses
All school districts face the hazard of catastrophic events that threaten the safety of
students and staff. In California, the potential of earthquake occurrences is added to the list of
conceivable dangers which school districts must endure. Nonetheless, when addressing the
matter of preparedness for any type of crisis, the essential strategy is for schools to sustain a
consistent state of readiness at all times, regardless of the size or location of the school district
(Kano & Bourque, 2007). To assist schools and state governmental agencies in ensuring
preparedness for emergencies, all are required to utilize the Standardized Emergency
Management System (SEMS) which has established standards for preparation that are inclusive
of specific trainings, equipment, supplies, and coordination with other agencies (Kano &
Bourque, 2007). The organization’s primary intention is to increase communication and
proficiency within an emergency response procedure that involves multiple agencies. Despite
their efforts, compliance with SEMS standards for elementary, middle, and high schools were all
well below 100 percent when examined in 2007 (Kano & Bourque, 2007). These statistics were
validated in in 2011 when a study from Johnson & Whales University identified that
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 34

implementation of crisis preparedness procedures continue to be inconsistent and fragmented,
resulting in a perceived level of ineffectiveness of school personnel to handle site emergencies
(Alba & Gable, 2011).
School district leaders, specifically school principals, play a critical role in how and how-
well a school community can effectively prepare for a crisis on campus. Beyond establishing
systems and trainings, true school leadership involves the ability to generate and maintain a
culture of optimism and hope during and after a crisis situation to promote effective efforts from
staff. Additionally, the capacity to facilitate open and trustworthy communications to and
between all impacted members of the school community throughout and in the aftermath of a
crisis is critical (Smith & Riley, 2012). School leaders may experience anxiety over making
crucial decisions in times of crises, when in fact, they may not even know what information is
needed to make informed decisions-they are unaware of what they don’t know, and what needs
to be known (Low, 2008). This is relevant and significant, given that school leaders have the
power to control the impact a crisis situation has upon students and staff. Decisions and
reactions on the part of school leaders during an emergency can have long-term effects on a
school community (Low, 2008). These enormous responsibilities call for school leaders to be as
well-equipped as possible for emergency events which may occur on their sites.
In preparation for school crisis events, some school districts choose to implement a
traditional school crisis team model, while other districts elect to utilize the Incident Command
System (ICS) model patterned from the United States Department of Homeland Security.
Research posits that the creation of a comprehensive crisis team is critical for addressing the
needs of a school community during and following a school crisis event (Nickerson, Brock &
Reeves, 2006). It is important to have staff assigned to a crisis team who are trained to address
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 35

the safety and mental health needs of students and adults. Moreover, school districts should
ensure that crisis teams have access to advanced training and district-provided resources, should
community resources be diminished due to high need. Despite these facts, many school districts
do not make an active choice for any team model with regard to preparing or responding to a
school emergency. However, of those districts that have chosen to have a crisis team, the typical
crisis team model, described below, is the prevailing model (Nickerson, Brock & Reeves, 2006).
The typical crisis model consists of a multidisciplinary team who are organized by
function, not by discipline, which allows for staff with a variety of abilities, experiences, and
skills to serve in areas of their strengths, as well as providing the opportunity to backfill with
other staff as necessary, for those who are unable or unavailable to do fulfill their duties
(Nickerson, Brock & Reeves, 2006). On these school-based teams, the principal usually serves
as the team leader and a mental health staff member or psychologist typically is assigned the
responsibility of ensuring that counseling and other related services are provided, as needed
(Nickerson, Brock & Reeves, 2006). Supplementary staff members may be assigned to
communicate with the public, address medical issues, and work closely with community
agencies such as the police and the fire department. (Nickerson, Brock & Reeves, 2006).
The Incident Command System model, utilized by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) is an efficient, organized model which is structured through five major
functions: Command, Intelligence, Operations, Logistics, and Finance. All federal government
departments and agencies must adopt the principles of this model in order to receive financial
federal preparedness assistance in times of crisis (Nickerson, Brock & Reeves, 2006). This
model utilizes a collective approach with a specific set of goals to be implemented throughout a
crisis incident. There are defined roles with detailed responsibilities assigned to staff, regardless
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 36

of their regular positions within their agency or school district. Responses to emergency
situations are largely more comprehensive than other models, including the model typically
established on a school campus (Nickerson, Brock & Reeves, 2006).
The practice of assessing threats on campus is a fundamental course of action when
preparing for a potential crisis. A threat assessment, executed by trained school staff can
determine whether an individual poses a credible threat of self-harm, or violence with the intent
to harm others (NASP, 2016b). This is crucial given that an average of almost thirty-five percent
of adolescents have been injured in a physical fight on school grounds during a typical school
year (Kataoka, et al., 2012). The National Association of School Psychologists recommends that
threat assessment teams be multi-disciplinary and be inclusive of mental health specialists.
Comprehensive threat assessments should be comprised of an evaluation and classification of a
threat, as well as an appropriate response and intervention to the threat. Additionally, the threat
assessment should be a part of a wide-ranging process in establishing and maintaining a safe
school environment (NASP, 2016b).
Included in any type of crisis team preparation for emergencies would be the component
of training, not only for crisis team members, but for all staff and students, as well. This may
entail a variety of drills to allow individuals to practice for a potential event, such as an
earthquake, fire, active shooter, etc., which may be beyond those drills required by state law.
The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) offers guidelines to schools in
conducting crisis exercises and drills (NASP, 2016c). This organization suggests that school
districts first begin with straightforward, inexpensive dialogue-based exercises, such as
orientations, and work towards more multifaceted operations-based exercises that would include
full-scale drills (Freeman & Taylor, 2010). Emergency drills, when implemented through best
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 37

practices can serve to increase knowledge and skills of students in responding to crisis situations
without increasing levels of anxiety and perceived safety (Zhe & Nickerson, 2007). It is prudent
for school staff and students to participate in trainings and drills on the various emergency
protocols identified in their school crisis plans (Clarke et al., 2014; NASP, 2016c). Tabletop
drills, those which involve in-depth discussions on crisis scenarios and how individuals or teams
would respond, orientations, workshops, emergency drills, functional exercises, and full-scale
drills collectively encompass a wide-range of training activities that schools can undertake to
prepare for a crisis (NASP, 2016c). It should be noted that the training of staff and students is
time consuming and ought to be a component of an on-going plan. Each exercise should always
be followed by debriefings to identify areas of improvement for the future, and to ensure a
pattern of on-going increased knowledge and skills (NASP, 2016c). Strategies, such as frequent
drills can be learned by students and staff to facilitate and generalize fundamental survival skills
across environments. To ensure a consistent standard of safety on a campus, all emergency plans
and protocols should be shared and made available for review to new staff and substitute
teachers, as a matter of course (Clarke et al., 2014).
When planning for any and every area within any organization, it is essential to consider
the needs of all individuals, and not just those within the majority group. Specific to the
preparation of a safe campus, this would extend to include the needs of individuals who have
language differences which may impede their ability to follow directives and safety guidelines in
a time of crisis. Having to rely on translations during a time of emergency is unpredictable, and
those translating may not pay close enough attention to the nuances and concepts which would
need to be accurately interpreted to ensure full comprehension of critical information (Hoffman,
2009). Research is scarce on the topic of addressing the needs of individuals with language
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 38

differences in event of an emergency, but perhaps a practical means of addressing this
phenomenon would be for schools to continuously reflect upon and examine the language needs
on their campuses, and to consider viable, alternative ways of communicating vital information
during emergency situations
A significant aspect of preparing for the safety of all individuals on a school campus
during a time of crisis is thoughtful and consistent recognition of the needs of students and adults
with disabilities. It is recommended that all school emergency plans take into consideration the
diverse range of intellectual, social, emotional, and physical development among all individuals
on a campus with special needs (Clarke et al., 2014). Judicious planning for the most vulnerable
populations is essential (Hoffman, 2009), as research supports that students with special needs
are at higher risk than their typical peers for acquiring health conditions and emotional trauma
after a crisis (Clarke et al., 2014). Chung et al., (2008) reported that although all school districts
within the five states that participated in a federal study in 2008 indicated that they had
evacuation plans for fire, not one of them had plans for their special needs populations. In
response, these researchers recommend proactive public policies to protect our most at-risk
students. One such practice would be to create an Individual Emergency and Lockdown Plan
(IELP) for each student with disabilities, similar to Individual Education Programs (IEPs) which
identify and outline the goals and services for students who receive special education services
(Clarke et al., 2014). It is recommended that IELPs be created yearly and updated more often, as
necessary. Additionally, it is critical that all staff who serve students with disabilities be aware
of these documents, including substitute teaching staff, should they need to provide assistance in
times of emergency (Clarke et al., 2014).
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 39

It’s critical to remember that as a result of their disabilities, some students may not have
the tolerance or ability to be a part of a large crowd during an evacuation, process information
when directions must be followed quickly, keep quiet during a lockdown situation or when lights
are turned off, or cope with the noise of shouting or sirens. These environmental conditions may
cause students with disabilities and others to lose focus and could possibly leave them incapable
of compliance on any level (Clarke et al., 2014). Furthermore, some students with special needs
may have physical limitations which can impede their ability to independently exit a building or
protect themselves in an emergency. Thoughtful consideration must be given to what supports
are needed for the well-being of these students, including the assurances that there are an
adequate number of adults available during emergencies to ensure all aspects of student safety.
It is recommended that special education teachers play an integral role in determining the needs
of students with disabilities with respect to how best to address these needs in times of crisis
(Clarke et al., 2014).
When the objective is to prepare for a safe campus, it can be an occasion to assume a
holistic or universal perspective that is well beyond the standpoint of a physically secure campus,
in conjunction with rules and practices to promote a safe environment. School leaders can
consider safety as a social, humanistic, and cultural phenomenon which encompasses
participation, relationships, and the dignity and well-being of all individuals on a school campus
(Syrjalainen et al., 2015). In other words, the establishment of practices when build upon the
sense of self of students, trust between all individuals, empowerment of students, and the
creation of a family-like environment can all lead to not just a safe campus, but to a culture of
safety. An objective of this perspective would be to have buy-in from all within a community to
create something significant and sustaining with respect to not only the actual campus, but for a
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 40

way as life, as well (Syrjalainen et al., 2015). This approach, from researchers in Finland is
based on cultural, social, and humanistic perspectives that look to address basic human
phenomena with an application to safety throughout all aspects of life.
Responding to Crises on School Campuses
Responding to a catastrophic event on a school campus should not be a random or
arbitrary act. A school’s ability to respond to a crisis will almost always be a reflection of the
climate, the preparation, and the resources (safety, crisis, and mental health) which were in place
prior to the crisis event (Cowan & Rossen, 2014). In particular, schools will significantly benefit
when they take a universal perspective toward the safety of their staff and students. Ensuring
that all individuals are protected is a process which begins with a holistic approach to the multi-
faceted needs of each unique school community.
One such perspective comes through a joint statement framework generated
collaboratively by several school and mental health professional associations which recommends
that school leaders be proactive in their actions concerning the prevention, preparation for, and
response to school emergencies. With regard to responding to a catastrophic situation, this team
of professionals stress the urgency of having established strong relationships between parents
and the school, and between the school and the community so as to create the opportunity to
respond to school-based crises through partnerships, and not in isolation (Cowan et al., 2015;
The National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2005). Moreover, when creating emergency
response plans, it is essential to craft strategies and actions which match the needs of the school
and local community, since each neighborhood presents with its own unique needs (The National
Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2005).
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 41

School leaders will likely find themselves in the position of having to respond to a crisis
situation on their campuses even if a positive school climate has been established and a multitude
of preparatory provisions have been implemented (Cowan et al., 2015). The first responsibility
of leadership on a school campus would be to determine if a crisis situation is legitimately
present or imminent. This ability to accurately identify a situation allows for school
administrators to act from a proactive position, and not from a reactive mode. Once a crisis
situation has been ascertained, school leaders can implement their emergency response plans
(Cornell & Sheras, 1998). At this juncture, parents should ideally be viewed as partners who can
assist in times of need (Cowan et al., 2015). For the intent of campus protection and security,
all emergency response plans should align with the practices and policies of the local first-
responders to support safety and build upon systems already in-place. There is evidence
established in case studies that demonstrates how a lack of teamwork between school and police
had further exacerbated situations that had already reached tragic proportions (Cornell & Sheras,
1998).
One consideration when planning for a response to emergency situations would be for
school leaders to identify and utilize alternative methods of communication with staff during a
crisis should the standard means of communication not be functioning, or unsafe to use (Sattler
et al., 2011). For example, should there be an active shooter on campus, a school leader would
clearly not choose to utilize the school’s public address system to warn staff and students to
barricade themselves behind locked doors, or close curtains and be prepared to fight, as
necessary. Alternatively, the school leadership, ideally in collaboration with local community
partners, may institute a communication system through texting to staff during a school
emergency for safety and efficiency purposes (Sattler et al., 2011). This strategy is
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 42

recommended due to the prevalent ownership of cell phones and that teacher cell phones are
almost always left on during instructional time. Moreover, due to the nature of threats on
campus, this is a communication method that can be utilized anywhere on or off a school site,
can be directed to specific individuals, and can be deployed silently and rapidly (Sattler et al.,
2011).
In responding to a school-based emergency situation, campus leaders must
purposefully engage an active mode of response, as opposed to a reactive mode. This
perspective allows for a prompt and more efficient response which may help to alleviate a crisis,
or at least not serve to further intensify an emergency situation (Cornell & Sheras, 1998). Often
times, school leaders will commit the common mistake of waiting out a situation to see if it gets
worse (a reflective mode), which delays a response to the point where a potential problem has
now become an actual problem (Cornell & Sheras, 1998). Once a crisis has occurred, school
support personnel such as psychologists, counselors, social workers, and members of the
school’s crisis team should immediately implement the procedures that ideally have been
practiced on an on-going basis throughout the year. These responses would include actions
carried out through policies of a school crisis team, or an Incident Command System. Responses
from individuals who have not been trained from schools without a formalized crisis team may
be insufficient, inappropriate, and possibly even dangerous (Nickerson, Brock & Reeves, 2006).
Furthermore, unorganized responses to emergency situations can be ineffective, foster poor
communication, lack accountability and coordination, and may potentially endanger the lives of
students and staff (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2016).
Depending upon the nature of an emergency situation, school crisis teams can respond in
a variety of ways. Through an organized response team, such as the FEMA Incident Command
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 43

System (ICS), situations of any complexity can be addressed by means of a process which
seamlessly brings together a variety of members with a shared objective, common terminology,
and a centralized operating system (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2016). In the
example of responding to a death of a student, a coordinated, effective, and efficient school team
would administer to the family, the friends of the student, the staff, and the remaining student
body, as necessary. Individuals needing assistance would be triaged through an interview
assessment process conducted by trained support personnel, and spaces throughout the campus
would be identified and utilized to provide counseling. Outside resources, such as police and
community mental health services would be contacted, and brought on campus as needed.
Throughout the process, identified team members would be responsible for various related tasks
such as media, staff, and community communications, outreach to school families, facility
management for team-related needs, monitoring of emotional levels and needs of staff and team
members, and financial needs (resources, food), all facilitated by an identified team leader
(Booker, 2014; Brunner & Lewis, 2016; Cowan & Rossen, 2014; Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 2016).
As previously discussed, as per California Education Code, provisions for individuals
with language differences and/or disabilities must be provided during the response phase of a
school emergency. It is the responsibility of adults to ensure that this vulnerable population, as
well as all other individuals on a school campus feel safe and protected at all times (Council for
Exceptional Children, 2013). Individualized support extends beyond the instructional programs
through times of crisis; therefore, determining the specific needs of a student with disabilities
during an emergency remains the responsibility of the professionals who serve this population
(Clarke et al., 2014). It is key that special education staff who are familiar with their students
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 44

work collaboratively with crisis team members to ensure that the unique needs of students
receiving special education services are appropriately addressed. Individual Emergency and
Lockdown Plans (IELP) for each student can address and provide information about student
strengths, medical and communication needs, sensory needs, and other critical information.
Each IELP document would include strategies and information inclusive of the location of
specific items which have been identified as necessary for use during an emergency, such as a
communication book or incentives, should these items be required during a time the student may
be experiencing stress (Clarke et al., 2014). As emphasized earlier, new and substitute teacher
staff should be made aware of these critical documents and items. Additionally, students with
disabilities may need the opportunity to practice drills and other related activities more often than
their typical peers. It is critical that students with special needs have the opportunity to
generalize safety and survival skills across multiple environments (Clarke et al., 2014).
The Aftermath
What happens when the imminent crisis or danger passes? Experts in the subject of
trauma report that the effects can be long-term, and sometimes permanent. (Cowan & Rossen,
2014). Although this study focuses specifically on the prevention, preparation for, and response
to school emergency situations, it would be remiss to not mention the potential after-effects for a
school community following a catastrophic event. Research exists on the critical damage that
can occur if individuals are not provided appropriate support for as long as it is needed after a
crisis event has occurred. Conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),
flashbacks, psychotic breakdowns, and other major mental health conditions are likely to be
experienced if consistent support and care are not provided immediately following a significant
event, and for as long as needed (Cole et al., 2013). These types of effects impact staff, as well
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 45

as students. Research demonstrates that twenty-five to thirty percent of adults and youth who
have experienced trauma will develop PTSD. Therefore, it is critical that school districts have an
awareness of the potential trauma related disorders that are likely to occur, and that these
institutions work collaboratively with community resources to ensure that their stakeholders are
appropriately supported prior to, during, and well-beyond a crisis event (Cole et al., 2013).
Synthesis of Literature Review
While much research exists on the discrete topics of preventing, preparing for, and
responding to school crises, there is minimal information in individual studies with the inclusive
embodiment of all three concepts. In other words, the current literature reflects the dearth of
comprehensive information from the state and federal levels concerning the collective concepts
of before, during, and after a school crisis. Additionally, even significantly less information and
recommendations regarding the complex needs of individuals with language differences and/or
disabilities is present in research, other than suggestions provided on the provision of plans
specific to individual students, and the documentation of accommodations needed to ensure the
safety of each student in the event of an emergency on a school campus. Most absent in the
available research are in-depth data on the perspective of how the role of leadership is embodied
within the development of creating a safe campus culture, continuing through to the response to
specific catastrophic events experienced by school communities.
The existing research and data on the individual concepts of preventing, preparing for,
and responding to school emergencies are rich and in-depth. There are a multitude of studies
available on each of the individual subjects, as well as on the topic of addressing the after-effects
which can occur following a catastrophic occurrence. However, should a school leader desire to
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 46

access wide-ranging, all-inclusive information on how to create a climate of safety and be
prepared to address potential and actual crisis situations during and beyond an event, there would
be minimal scholarly material available from a single source.
Presentation of Theories
Constructivist Theory
The Constructivist Theory, or worldview, is a framework in which individuals seek to
understand the world by using pieces of information and forming it into a meaningful whole
(Creswell, 2014). In large part, this study fits within this perspective as it looks to understand
from the viewpoint of school leaders what has been learned through their experiences in handling
crises at their school sites. The interactions with these school leaders, via interviews and
questionnaires helped to establish meaning and context to their stories with regard to their
emotions, thought processes, and their decisions made during a time of emergency at their school
sites. Based on the data and information provided by the school leaders who agreed to be
interviewed and surveyed, learning can occur through the collective data of their relevant
experiences.
The process used to generate data and information from the school leaders also fits within
the Constructivist framework, as the researcher has relied on prior knowledge to construct new
meaning. The learning process was facilitated by the breadth and depth of the information
provided by school leaders. This study did not begin with a theory, but instead, a pattern of
meaning was inductively developed as the participants shared their experiences. Meaning was
determined through these personal interactions with the principals, through open-ended questions
that facilitated a free flow of views, which allowed for interpretation, and ultimately, will
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 47

contribute to the body of scholarly literature about the topic of leadership in the time of crisis on
a school campus.
Social Reconstructionism Theory
Social Reconstructionism theory is a philosophy that is also present within this paper, as
the research questions which led this study centered on a pursuit to create change in the way that
school districts address potential or actual crises (Gutek, 2009). This philosophy is based on a
belief that learning is grounded on the perspectives and the genuine challenging experiences of
others, with the ultimate intent of utilizing this knowledge to change the world. This is a
relevant theory to discuss as the objective of this study is to provide applicable information to
school leaders so they can utilize these lessons at their own school sites in hopes of improving
and ensuring the safety and well-being of all individuals on their school campuses.
Transformative Worldview
The processes utilized in this study also involves the Transformative Learning
perspective in that change is the centerpiece of this framework (Creswell, 2014), and is also an
objective of this study. Ultimately, a transformation in the way school leaders perform, make
decisions, and implement changes in practices and policies can impact the manner in which
safety is perceived, valued, and achieved on school campuses. This theory, drawn on the works
of Paulo Freire and others, also has political significance in that it is concerned with the way in
which marginalized individuals are treated, and is focused on equity and the abolishment of
oppression (Creswell, 2014). This particular perspective is applicable to this study because of
research focused on the rights of individuals with language differences and those with disabilities
in times of crisis. The supposition taken within this paper is that it is critical that the needs of all
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 48

individuals on a campus be fully considered and protected when preparing for and responding to
a school emergency. Anything less should be considered discriminatory.

Figure 1: Applied Frameworks
Summary
Although all school districts have some level of safety plans in place, there currently is no
national model for school-based crisis prevention, preparedness, and response, which results in a
lack of comprehensive practices that address the safety of students and adults on school
campuses (Boon et al., 2011; Clarke et al., 2014). Furthermore, the needs of individuals with
language differences and/or disabilities during the time of crises are overwhelmingly ignored,
even within existing safety plans (Clarke et al., 2014). Isolated research on practices specific to
Social
Reconstructionism
Theory

Changes in Society
Social Reforms

Constructivism
Culturally Relevant Activities
Prior Knowledge
Active Learning
Enculturation

Transformative
Worldview
Political
Power and Justice Oriented
Collaborative

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 49

prevention, preparation, and responses to emergency situations is accessible, although school
districts would need to seek out this data through multiple sources for a thorough perspective on
school safety. Schools can better plan for emergencies by understanding the current research and
by learning from skilled school leaders who have gained valuable knowledge through their
experiences with school crises.
Following, in Chapter 3, the methods of study and data collection are described. The
sample and population for this study is identified and rationalized. Chapter 3 concludes with a
discussion of the data analysis process.

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 50

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

Restatement of the Purpose of the Study and the Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to identify the current practices of school leaders which they
consider to be effective for preventive programming, staff and student preparation, and
responsive procedures executed to maintain and increase the safety and well-being of the adults
and students on a school campus. This data of amalgamated, meaningful practices allows for the
contribution of a wide-range plan to support schools in the prevention, preparation of, and
response to school crises. This plan is also inclusive of strategies and proposals for establishing
protocols during a time of crisis for individuals with language differences and/or disabilities.
Current research centers on identified, discrete practices (actual or recommended),
focusing on independent stages of a potential crisis, such as the creation of a harmonious campus
and a culture of strong character (preventing), training staff and students and establishing crisis
teams (preparing), and the implementation of an emergency response model which involves
coordination with community partners (responding). What can be added to this conversation is a
wider scope of information initiated by current research and the identified leadership practices
recommended by experienced school administrators, which encompasses and addresses all stages
of a crisis to provide guidance prior to, during, and following an actual emergency, to wholly
benefit the students and adults on a school campus.
This mixed methods study consisted of a survey of 17 questions for school leaders within
K-12 public school districts within California. One hundred eighteen school principals were sent
the survey with a targeted return rate of 40-60 percent, or a total of 30 responses, at the very
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 51

least. This inquiry was followed by interviews of 6 school leaders who had participated in the
survey process, and who agreed to meet in person. The interview participants were chosen to
reflect a representation of leaders from different sized school districts and socio-economic
communities, and from elementary, middle and high school levels. All participants were invited
to share school safety-related documents to describe and clarify the more in-depth practices or
policies put in place at their sites for the purpose of increasing and ensuring security.
A mixed methodology approach was chosen for this study to both facilitate the
assemblage of universal and collective lessons learned from a variety of school leaders who have
experienced crisis situations on their campuses (survey), as well as to better understand the
specifics surrounding the crises, and the motivations and nuances associated with their personal
experiences (interviews). Documents requested from school administrators have supplemented
the data obtained from the surveys and interviews. These documents, as well as the data derived
from the study were emergent in design and inductive in analysis which assisted with the process
of generating deeper insights germane to the research problem (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Utilizing the two methodologies (both Quantitative and Qualitative), in conjunction with
literature reviewed allowed for clarification on actions taken by school leaders and a deeper
understanding of the thought processes behind those responses to the crisis situations on their
campuses.
The following research questions guided this study:
1. From a school leader’s perspective, what has been learned about practices focused on
preventing crises on school campuses?
2. How have school district leaders learned to prepare for crises on school campuses?
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 52

3. From a school leader’s perspective, what has been learned about responding to crises
on a school campus?
4. How do school leaders plan for individuals with special needs and/or language
differences in a time of crisis?
Through a primarily Constructivist framework, this study was an exercise of continuous
learning based upon the prior knowledge and real-world experiences of school leaders. Themes
were identified throughout the research and meaningful conclusions were drawn as a result of the
active, problem-based learning process. The project was driven by culturally relevant activities,
while the investigation was conducted in concomitance with a survey, interview process, and
document analysis (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013).
Three assumptions guided the literature review for this study (Skiba et al., 2000). They
are as follows:
1. Violence can be prevented.
2. There is no single system to make schools safe.
3. Ongoing planning and commitment are critical for school safety.
There are no assurances that emergencies will not occur on school campuses. However,
research has established that preventative actions can make a difference in reducing the number
of certain types of significant incidents, such as school violence, which was why these
assumptions were applied. Furthermore, the implementation of a variety of practices which
reflect current community needs can be significantly effective in keeping schools safe (Skiba et
al., 2000). As with the application of any new skill set, responses to emergency situations are
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 53

more efficacious when individuals are knowledgeable, comfortable, and proficient in the areas in
which they need to perform (Skiba et al., 2000).
Sample and Population
Purposeful sampling was used for this study to maximize learning about the information-
rich practices employed by school leaders during a time of crisis. The selection was made
through a realist approach involving criteria chosen to establish and capitalize upon the
experiences of school leaders who have undergone emergency situations on their campuses
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The search for veteran administrators as participants who identify as
having had specific encounters with emergencies was deliberate, as their contributions will
augment the research and the understanding of why and in what manner choices were made to
increase safety on their campuses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013) maintained that
as realists, we do not make assumptions that the research questions and our deductions about
intent, philosophies, and consequences should be condensed and limited to the actual data
collected. Alternatively, realists consider data collected as the evidence for the unobserved
phenomena (gathered through interviews), which is viewed as genuine and valid.
The criteria for choosing school site leaders (Creswell, 2014) within California will be
that each participant must possess at least three years of administrative experience as a school
leader, with the majority of participants serving at the secondary level, as this would involve a
higher probability of having experienced a significant crisis event on their campuses, in
comparison with their elementary principal colleagues.

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 54

Instrumentation
The instrumentation utilized for this study consisted of a 17-question survey, followed by
a personal interview of 6 willing participants. The analysis of related documents provided by the
school leaders was also utilized as an integral part of the research process. The conceptual
frameworks guiding this research are associated with the Constructivist Theory, the Social
Reconstructionism Theory, and a Transformative Worldview. Questions were asked within the
interview to elicit the school leaders’ perceptions and feelings about their experiences, as an
authentic qualitative research study incorporates the viewpoints of the study participants
(Maxwell, 2013). In maintaining this concept, the beliefs and values of the school leaders
involved in this research was genuinely respected and reported.
The Constructivist Theory allowed for the gathering of discrete portions of information to
be structured into a meaningful totality (Creswell, 2014). New information was captured based
upon the material gleaned through the shared experiences of the participants. The Social
Reconstructionist Theory was in place within this study in that the quest for change through the
objective of identifying ways for school districts to effectively address emergencies on their
campuses (Gutek, 2009). This theory is centered on the belief that the knowledge gained from
others can and should be used to bring about social change (Gutek, 2009). Lastly, the intention
of change for the purpose of equity will also be represented within the study through a
Transformative Worldview (Creswell, 2014). Specifically, the research conducted on the safety
needs of individuals with disabilities and/or language differences on school campuses was
pursued and recognized through this framework, and subsequently throughout this study.
The research questions were crafted to identify school leaders who have experienced and
responded to emergencies on their campuses, as well as those who have chosen and implemented
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 55

preventative and preparatory measures in the event that a crisis should occur. Additionally, the
research questions served as a foundation of inquiry on the thoughts, perceptions, and beliefs
behind the decisions made concerning the safety of the individuals on a school campus. To
obtain answers to these questions, two different types of methods were applied. The use of a 17-
question survey (Quantitative/closed-ended) assisted in the identification of participants who
possessed relevant information regarding school safety (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This process was also effective in generating general data related to specific actions and
practices that have been put into operation by school principals.
To obtain additional research on the motivation and views of school leaders concerning
why they chose particular measures in planning for and responding to site emergencies, an
interview process (Qualitative/open-ended) was utilized as the second method (Creswell, 2014;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews, foundationally based upon the research questions,
provided the opportunity for the participants to share their epistemology and perspectives on
their personal experiences of undertaking the responsibilities associated with handling school
crises. Their detailed responses to the interview queries and probes were coded and ultimately,
themes emerged, allowing for a deeper understanding of emergency practices identified as
effective by the school leaders (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The request for related documents from the participants provided additional information
to augment the data garnered through the survey and interview processes (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This mixed-method procedure supported the establishment of validity through
triangulation (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), as well as provided thick data on the
types and frequency of the school emergencies the participants experienced, the scope of their
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 56

practices and responses; and captured the nuances of the judgments made by the school leaders
during a time of crisis (Maxwell, 2013).
Prior to the development of the instruments for this study, there was the identification of
the context of the problem (of the absence of a national model of a comprehensive school crisis
plan), the understanding of the significance of the problem, the recognition of the existing gap
within the problem, followed by the statement of the purpose of the study (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). From this point, the research questions could be constructed, which then allowed for the
determination of the instruments to be used, as a match between the research and the method
design is critical (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
In consideration of the validity and reliability of the study, a variety of steps were taken, as
Maxwell (2013) states that the manner in which data is gathered and analyzed directly impacts
the value and validity of the conclusions of a study. Therefore, triangulation, member checks,
inter-rater checks on coding, audit trails, and process notes were utilized for the purpose of
establishing and maintaining validity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Furthermore, field testing of the
survey was implemented for the objective of determining the content validity of scores and for
the opportunity to improve upon both the survey and the interview questions (Creswell, 2014).
Prior to administering the survey, facilitating the interviews, and requesting related
documents, approval was secured from the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) which required a signature of consent from each school leader (see
Appendix A).

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 57

Data Collection
Survey
A survey comprised of 17 questions (see Appendix B) was created and distributed online
to 118 school principals within California. The participants who responded to the survey
answered questions through an ordinal scale (Fink, 2009) of 5 to 1, with 5 signifying strongly
agree, 4 signifying agree, 3 signifying neutral, 2 signifying disagree, and 1 signifying strongly
disagree. The survey participants also had the option of selecting 0, which indicated do not
know. In addition to the questions targeting school safety practices, one question asked if the
respondent had at least three years of administrative experience, one question asked if the
respondents were agreeable to sharing school safety-related documents, and the final question
asked if the respondents were willing to participate in a personal interview. A three-phase
process was utilized to encourage a high response rate beginning with a brief advance notice
letter, followed by the survey and then up to two courteous reminders sent within the following
two to four weeks (Creswell, 2014; Dillman, 2007).
Multiple elements were considered throughout the development of the survey items,
including; the use of standard grammar, the avoidance of jargon, and the assurance that all items
were straightforward and relevant to the experiences of the school leaders (Fink, 2009). Each
participant was provided particularized information (see Appendix C) regarding the purpose of
the survey, a rationale as to why a survey method was chosen, and reasons as to why the survey
used a cross-sectional approach (Creswell, 2014). The function of the survey was to quantify
which school leaders had faced emergencies on their campuses and what type of emergencies
had been experienced, as well as to gather general information about preventative and
preparatory practices which may be in place.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 58

Interviews
Six school leaders were interviewed from a protocol developed specifically for this
research study (see Appendix D). These school administrators had self-identified through the
survey that they had experienced emergencies on their campuses; and each leader had indicated
that they were willing to provide additional information through an interview on the particulars
of the emergency events, as well as to discuss the perceptions and beliefs held before, during and
after the crises.
The development of the interview questions was grounded in the original four research
questions, as this is a necessary nexus of the qualitative research process (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The interview questions were semi-structured, open-ended, and allowed for candor of
responses. The questions were judiciously developed consistent with the attributes identified by
Fink (2009) including brief, unbiased, non-leading inquiries intentionally lacking in jargon.
Each interview question was asked in the same order of all participants, and probes were used, as
appropriate. The interviews lasted approximately 40-60 minutes in duration.
Documents
Each of the school leaders were invited to provide associated documents such as safety-
related written policies, training materials, records created and intended for a crisis response, etc.
to further describe preventative, preparatory, and responsive practices and leadership experiences
during a time of crisis. The artifacts were used to assist in the evaluation of the actual level of
implementation of practices shared by the school leaders. Moreover, these documents served to
support and enhance previously gathered data, as well as foster credibility and validity, and build
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 59

logical argument for emergent themes through triangulation (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Coding
The process of coding was applied upon the qualitative data provided by the participants.
This process allowed for in-depth inductive analysis of the research through a deeper level of
interpretation and reflection (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A coding method based
on the Constructivist, Social Reconstructionism, and Transformative frameworks was used to
analyze the data. The procedure began with the identification of general categories, followed by
a refinement phase to identify themes that occurred within the broader categories.
Data Analysis
The data analysis within this study was organized by each of the four research questions,
utilizing a model from Creswell (2014) which employed a systemic structure inclusive of
preparing the data, judiciously studying of the data, coding the data, identifying themes within
the data, qualitatively representing the themes within the data, and finally, interpreting the data.
This process was followed for all of the research gleaned from each of the instruments, as well as
from the documents provided by the participants.
The analysis process facilitated the realization of what is known, and what more needs to
be learned, regarding the research questions and the problem to be addressed within the study.
Throughout the procedure, the three aforementioned theoretical frameworks were continuously
reflected upon as the emergent themes were explored and carefully examined (Glesne, 2011).
The role of the researcher/writer was also carefully considered; as an illustrator, decoder,
and change agent, as these roles and functions are essential when garnering and analyzing data
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 60

for a research study (Glesne, 2011). It is critical that any biases within the researchers be
identified and monitored within the theoretical frameworks to ensure transparency with how
these partialities may be influencing the compilation and analysis of the data (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Attentiveness was applied during the data analysis stage to safeguard against subjectivity
with participant responses, as the full range of the responses were recorded and published,
regardless of the perspective. Moreover, the survey respondents were provided aliases during
the data analysis process, so as to protect and respect the identity and privacy of the school
leaders and of their schools and districts (Creswell, 2014).
The following Chapter will discuss the results of the research. For clarity, the report of
findings is organized by research question. Chapter Four also includes personal researcher
reflections on the findings, as well as insights on the meaning of the findings.

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 61

CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
Overview
This study identifies effectual school safety practices supported by research, as well as
procedures utilized and considered to be valuable by school leaders within California to address
the prevention, preparation for, and response to school crises. Given that a significant event
having a critical impact on a school community can occur at any time, it is relevant and crucial
that school leaders have an awareness of safety practices which have been identified by their
colleagues as effective. The purpose of this mixed methods study was to examine both what
current research and experienced school administrators recognize as beneficial practices for
before, during, and after a disaster occurring on a school campus. As no comprehensive national
model of school-based crisis preparedness currently exists (Boon et al., 2011, Clarke et al.,
2014), it is fundamentally prudent to be cognizant of systems and procedures that can be put in
place to decrease the possibility of school disasters, and to know how to effectively handle these
emergency situations, should they occur (Clarke et al., 2014).
Research Questions
The following four research questions guided this study:
1. From a school leader’s perspective, what has been learned about practices focused on
preventing crises on school campuses?
2. How have school district leaders learned to prepare for crises on school campuses?
3. From a school leader’s perspective, what has been learned about responding to crises
on a school campus?
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 62

4. How do school leaders plan for individuals with special needs and/or language
differences in a time of crisis?
Moreover, the following three assumptions guided the literature review for this study (Skiba et
al., 2000):
1. Violence can be prevented.
2. There is no single system to make schools safe.
3. Ongoing planning and commitment are critical for school safety.
Research has demonstrated that preventative actions can significantly decrease a variety of major
school-based incidents, including school violence (Skiba et al., 2000). Therefore, the focus of
this study was based on the premise that effective practices exist that can support an increased
level of safety and security of a school campus, and once identified, these practices should be
employed.
General Features of the Research
District demographics. Invitations to participate in a 17-question survey were sent to school
principals in varying size K-12 public school districts throughout California. These electronic
requests were purposefully distributed to school leaders serving in districts across 24 counties
which embodied the northern, central, and southern regions of the state, to promote participant
representation from diverse communities and districts of differing sizes and socioeconomic
status. At least two principals were selected from each identified school district. The names and
email addresses of the school leaders were obtained and randomly selected from the California
Department of Education website (California Department of Education, 2016a), and distributed
through SurveyMonkey, a web-based, customizable survey tool.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 63

Participant demographics. For the survey data to be considered usable, the principal
participants were required to have at least three years of school administration experience, and to
have personally experienced a crisis event at a school site. It was initially unknown as to which
survey recipients met these two criteria, but those measures were later determined by individual
responses to specific questions within the survey.
Data collection process. The original intent of the researcher was to send electronic surveys to
approximately 60 school leaders through purposeful sampling, with an anticipated responses rate
of at least 50 percent, or of at least 30 usable responses. The first collection of 60 surveys were
distributed via SurveyMonkey in March 2017. The initial response rate of less than 10 percent
was exceptionally low, with a sizeable percentage (13.6%) of surveys being returned due to
email addresses no longer being in service. Each survey was preceded by a brief advanced
notice email, followed by the survey, and then up to two courteous email reminders if no
response had been received within two and four weeks of receipt of the electronic survey. Three
separate additional group survey mailings were generated due to the continued low response rate,
despite up to two reminders being sent, with a total of 118 surveys eventually being distributed.
The last group of surveys was transmitted in mid-June 2017, which ultimately yielded a total of
31 participant responses with usable data. No further surveys were mailed once the minimum
response target of 30 responses was reached, and after confirmation that the group of 31
respondents was representative of school districts of disparate sizes and socioeconomic levels
from throughout the state.
The respondents collectively represented elementary, middle, high school and
continuation high school principals from across California from exceptionally small districts of
approximately 4,000 students, to our largest district with nearly 600,000 students. All survey
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 64

participants reported to have experienced at least one campus emergency while serving as an
administrator at a school site, and only one principal indicated that he/she had less than three
years of administrative experience, resulting in the elimination of this particular survey from the
research pool (See Figures 2 & 3). Furthermore, a total of four principals chose to opt out of
participating in the survey.
In addition to responding to the survey questions, each principal was asked via the
questionnaire if they would consider sharing district safety-related documents or materials, and if
they would be interested in participating in a face-to-face interview with the researcher for more
in-depth questions about their personal experiences involving school emergencies (See Figures
17 & 18). Five participants provided various school-emergency related artifacts and sixteen
principals indicated their willingness to participate in a personal interview.
The safety-related materials contributed by the five principals are representative of
examples of practices for preventing, preparing for, and responding to school emergencies. One
principal shared multiple documents addressing Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
(PBIS) for the purpose of imparting information on establishing a culture of increased campus
harmony, paired with a reduction of negative student behaviors, thereby considered a
preventative measure toward enhancing school security. Four principals provided documents
outlining various disaster drill procedures, as samples of campus preparation for potential
emergencies. Moreover, one principal provided documents from his district’s crisis team which
included the approved procedures for responding to a range of campus emergencies. Together,
these artifacts, in addition to the interviews, were beneficial in creating a holistic understanding
of the comprehensive practices that can be employed to safeguard the physical and emotional
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 65

well-being of all individuals on a school campus before, during, and in response to a crisis
situation.
Six principals; two from the elementary school level, one from the middle school level,
and three from the high school level, representing an equivalent number of districts were selected
for the personal interviews. The districts of employment for the participants characterized
variability in size and community demographics. One participant serves as principal for a
specialized school for students with moderate to severe disabilities, located on a comprehensive
high school campus. Each principal willingly signed an interview disclaimer providing approval
for three actions: agreeing to participate in the interview, understanding that the researcher would
like to audio record the interview for the sole purpose of retrieving information for the research
study, and acknowledging the objective of the interview. Although each interview participant
had the option to choose that the interview not be recorded, all six school leaders unhesitatingly
consented to the recordings. The audio tapes of the interviews were transliterated through a
trustworthy transcription service. Each principal stated their understanding that any and all
information gleaned from the interviews would be utilized only for this study, and that their
names, and the names of their schools and districts would be maintained in confidence by the
researcher and would not be shared with any individual parties or institutions. To safeguard
confidentiality, participants were assigned pseudonyms in the form of a letter and numbers (i.e.:
A1001-A1006) which were used as identifiers on all documents and within this study. Upon
completion of the interview, each of the principals was offered an Amazon gift card of $30 in
value as a token of appreciation for their time.
The interviews consisted of 40 questions addressing practices for preventing, preparing
for, and responding to school emergencies. Interview questions were omitted when a participant
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 66

had fully addressed a question in a previous response. The inquiries were asked in a semi-
structured format with follow-up probes to elicit additional information, when needed. Each
interview query directly corresponded to one of the four research questions for this study and
was designed to obtain rich chronicles of the school leaders’ unique experiences. The interviews
lasted from 40-60 minutes each, and took place at the principals’ school sites or at a mutually
convenient K-12 school or university location throughout the month of June 2017.
The participants’ responses to the survey and interview questions, and the shared safety-
related documents were analyzed to determine themes within the context of the text (Creswell,
2014). Usable data was retrieved from the 31 principals who participated in the electronic
surveys. An analysis of the participants’ responses was provided in graph form by
SurveyMonkey, a web-based survey tool. Six principals partook in face-to-face, individual
interviews which were audio recorded. Following each interview, the audio recordings were
commercially transcribed.
The researcher reviewed the survey results multiple times to ensure that the criteria of
having held an administrative position for a minimum of three years, and having had experienced
at least one emergency on their campus were met. This procedure also allowed for increased
familiarity with the survey responses. Furthermore, the responses were analyzed to identify
common themes in relation to the four research questions for this study. The survey results aided
the researcher in making supplemental adjustments to the interview questions to further refine
the process of pursuing detailed responses for the six individual participant interviews.
The transcribed interview documents were hand-coded by the researcher to enhance
fluency of the text and understanding of the potential multiple meanings of the principals’
responses. The coding process was organized within a Code Book in four sections by clustering
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 67

the themes that emerged within the answers to the interview questions with respect to the four
research questions. There was a range between 14-46 sub-codes using in vivo terms, identified
within each of the four sections. The purpose of the data analysis was to ascertain common
themes from the principals’ responses to determine collective emergency practices, deemed as
effective, and as to identify themes related to each of the four research questions.
Findings
Research question one. The first research question examined the practices which campus
administrators have found to be effective in preventing school-based crises. These practices
focus on procedures or measures put into place explicitly to develop and perpetuate a school
culture of harmony and safety. Preventative actions can be diverse and can have a direct and
positive impact on school climate, which can support the successful deterrence of school
violence and the healthy development of students (Cohen et al., 2009).
There were three survey questions addressing research question one with respect to
practices for school-based crisis prevention (See Figures 4-6). Over 82 percent (82.15%) of the
principal respondents indicated that positive behavior intervention supports (PBIS) contribute to
creating a safe environment on their campuses. Almost the same percentage (85.71%) of
respondents denoted that their facilities have established security measures, such as closed
campuses, cameras, lighting, etc., which promote campus safety. Lastly, every principal (100 %)
responded that the culture of their schools positively impact safety on their campuses.
There were three interview questions for the six principals that expressly addressed
research question one and which were designed to elicit details relating to the particular types of
positive behavior intervention supports utilized, the specific physical plant security measures in
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 68

place, and how these elements, along with their unique school cultures contribute to the safety of
the six campuses. The significant themes that emerged from the interview responses addressing
effective prevention practices included the implementation of positive behavior intervention
systems, the importance of closed and locked campuses inclusive of security cameras, mental
health counseling, the need for positive and open relationships with the local police department,
and frequent professional development for staff for the purpose of capacity building in safety-
related topics. The following quotations from principal participants summarize a few of these
common themes addressing preventive practices in relation to research question one.
Participant A1001 spoke to the practices on his campus of teaching about the importance of
character and how positively recognizing students when they demonstrate desired conduct sends
a strong message to the school community of what behaviors are expected and rewarded, while
also increasing the safety and the affability between students exhibited on his campus:
We award points, based on the HERO system for kids to be recognized by our dean who
carries a mobile scanning device. The kids get scanned with their ID for being kind, or
when they are caught being good. We track this data and tie this to our district-wide
program of Character Counts! so a student can be rewarded when demonstrating
trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and showing good citizenship.
We also regularly recognize and reward students for being outstanding in academics and
other areas.
Participant A1005 stated the following about the use of positive behavior intervention supports
and related topics addressed in professional development opportunities for teachers:
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 69

Something that’s related to PBIS is teaching teachers to use de-escalation strategies when
students are experiencing behavior issues in a classroom, but it’s also to get teachers to
think differently, especially veteran teachers, on how they and schools have handled
discipline in the past. The newer way of thinking about it is that we try to reduce the
number of suspensions- this is a way of looking at student behavior that’s different for
most of the teachers.
Participant A1002 described the security measures on his facility that he attributes to augmenting
the overall safety of his campus:
Our campus is closed and locked, it has a fence around the perimeter and last year we
installed security cameras throughout the campus. Specifically, it’s to ensure the safety
in the parking lots and the various doors to the campus, not to monitor student behavior.
The campus is safer because we can look at those videos in terms of vandalism and
general safety practices.
Participant A1004 addressed the significant change on her campus after she established a
position for a mental health counselor who implemented a restorative justice approach for
dealing with student behaviors:
Our new counselor taught the kids communication skills. The year before, we had 20-
plus girl fights. On her first day, our counselor pulled in a group of girls who were ready
to fight and sat them down. They came to the Restorative Justice circle as a bunch of
really angry girls. They all cried, apologized, talked through their feelings, and then
actually all left as friends. That’s happened time and time again with this process.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 70

That same principal emphasized the importance of establishing a positive and communicative
relationship with the local police department as a strategy for ensuring a safe and secure campus
during school emergencies:
My initial relationship with the local PD was a result of my school being in a high crime
area. We figured their problems were my problems and vice versa. We communicate via
text messages and cell phone- I check in on a regular basis, and they do the same. When
you have open lines of communication and you have respect for each other, then you can
jointly manage things successfully during times of emergencies.
A review of the multiple documents addressing positive behavior intervention supports
provided by one of the school leader participants identified a multi-tiered focus on the
responsibilities of school administrators and staff, accompanied by rubrics to identify and
improve upon the implementation of a system of student behavioral expectations and supports.
In this principal’s district, all staff is required to actively participate in establishing and executing
school-wide positive behavioral supports which include clear behavioral expectancies along with
meaningful acknowledgement and reinforcement for desired student behaviors. These systems
are designed to shape student behaviors, as well as influence the behaviors of staff in creating a
comprehensive understanding and fostering of established behavioral norms and supports. A
positive school climate reflects the character of the school, and as such impacts safety,
interpersonal relationships, and learning practices which are necessary for a healthy, productive,
and secure campus (Cohen et al., 2009).
Research question two. The second research question addressed how school district leaders
have learned to prepare for crises on their campuses. It was communicated to both survey and
interview participants that for the purposes of this study, the term “crisis” refers to a credible
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 71

threat, significant event, or emergency occurring on a school campus, which can include but not
be limited to the severe injury or death of a student or a staff member, an act of violence, or a
catastrophic environmental incident.
The survey asked four questions directly related to research question two which
concentrated on each respondent’s perception of the ability of staff to identify mental health
warning signs, the knowledge level of students of emergency protocols, the existence of safety
protocols above and beyond the mandated drills, and the ability of staff to lead students through
emergency procedures during potential or actual crisis situations (See Figures 7-10). Almost 86
percent (85.71%) of the respondents indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that their staff
is effectual in identifying mental health warnings in both students and adults on their campus.
The remaining respondents (14.29%) answered with a neutral response.
Just over 82 percent (82.15%) of the respondents of the second survey question
concerning emergency preparation believed that their students were knowledgeable in specific
safety protocols for a variety of school disasters. Almost 11 percent (10.71%) of the respondents
were neutral on this question, and 7.14 percent of the principals disagreed with the statement that
their students were knowledgeable of safety protocols for school emergencies.
For the third survey question, roughly 89 percent (89.28%) of the school leaders
indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that their sites and districts have established
emergency and safety protocols above and beyond the state-mandated earthquake and fire drills.
Of the three principals who did not register agreement with this question; one principal
responded as neutral, one responded in disagreement, and one strongly disagreed that their site
and district has created emergency and safety procedures beyond what has been mandated by the
state.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 72

The final survey question which correlated to research question two spoke to the skill
level of school staff of their ability to lead students through disaster and safety procedures
through a variety of emergency situations. Almost 93 percent (92.86%) of the principal
respondents indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that their staff possess the skills
necessary to follow established protocol in the event of a school emergency. A substantially
smaller percentage of respondents (7.14%) disagreed in that they did not feel that their staff was
able to safely follow emergency procedures in situations where students would require adult
leadership and direction.
There were eleven interview questions linked to research question two which queried
about school emergency preparatory practices with the intent of eliciting particulars about how
staff identify mental health warning signs in individuals on campuses, what skills students
possess in relation to carrying out practices in response to school emergencies, which emergency
protocols are in place on their campuses beyond earthquake and fire drills, and what skills school
staff possess with respect to carrying out safety protocols during a time of crisis. Additional
probing questions were asked for the purpose of obtaining supplemental details about each of the
interview queries. The notable themes that developed from the interview questions addressing
practices associated with preparing for potential emergencies included the necessity of school
psychologists and mental health counseling, the importance of instituting and regularly
practicing fire, earthquake, and other drills, and the value of school safety plans.
The following interview excerpts from principal participants provide insight to some of
the themes most frequently expressed within the six interviews related to research question two.
Participant A1002 spoke to the importance of holding frequent emergency drills and debriefing
afterward with staff:
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 73

We hold monthly fire drills and two disaster drills a year. We actually have the students
practice what happens if their teacher is incapacitated, and what their responsibilities
would be. We’re talking elementary students, so that can be a little challenging. Often,
when we debrief, we find there’s little things we need to tighten up and we don’t want to
wait a whole year to do that. So, even though it’s not mandated, we do another drill
about two or three months later in the springtime to try to refine that activity as well.
Another principal, Participant A1004, contributed thoughts on the need for a well-crafted school
safety plan:
Our district’s school safety plan process is well thought out about who provides mental
health support, who’s responsible for the morgue, and who’s got the communication
piece-you’ve got to plan ahead to make sure that have your best people in those spots.
Participant A1006 added:
We have a massive safety plan, it’s really comprehensive, so I use a cheat sheet placed
next to my desk for times of emergencies. It’s proved to be very handy and efficient.
Participant A1005 shared how mental health and school psychologist staff are critical players in
the prevention of potential crisis situations, specifically suicidal and homicidal ideation:
Our mental health and psychologist staff provide training to help teachers to be sensitive
to student needs, including how to identify ideation through student journals. Teachers
know when to call the office for support and an adult will come to escort a student to a
staff member trained in mental health. In the past, teachers would send an identified
student with a peer to the counselor, but frequently the students would end up in the quad
with the friend attempting to provide counseling on their own, and clearly, they are not
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 74

qualified to do that. So now we always ensure that we have an adult from the office who
will escort students for counseling to staff who know how to appropriately intervene and
provide support.
A review of the documents addressing preparative practices provided by survey
respondents described the organizational emergency drill procedures from four school districts.
All documents outlined similar processes for the frequency and protocols of the drills, and
described the individual roles and responsibilities of staff. The documents provided by two of
the four districts offered a greater number of details on enacting emergency drills, affording
increased clarity which may be helpful for new or inexperienced staff, or for staff who may be
undergoing an anxiety-provoking situation. Research posits that when drills are executed
properly and regularly, students can better respond in an actual emergency situation with less
heightened levels of apprehension or fear regarding their personal safety (Zhe & Nickerson,
2007).
Research question three. The third research question focused on what school site leaders have
learned about effectively responding to campus emergencies. Strategies and practices can
include, but not necessarily be limited to implementing protocols identified on school safety
plans, utilizing crisis teams, and working collaboratively with local agencies such as police and
fire departments, and mental health community partners.
There were four questions within the survey that were directly correlated to research
question three which addressed the school leaders’ perceptions of the capability of site staff to
respond effectively to serious mental health issues (such as suicidal or homicidal ideation), the
level of training of staff in protocols for responding to potential or actual incidents of violence on
campus, the scope of the relationship between the school and community service providers, and
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 75

the amount of support provided by the school district central offices when responding to
emergencies (See Figures 11-14).
For the first survey question associated with effective responses to emergencies, seventy-
five percent of the respondents indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that their school
staff are capable to effectively respond to significant mental health issues. Almost eighteen
percent (17.86%) of the school leaders were neutral on this question, and 7.14 percent of the
respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed that their staff possess the skills to
successfully respond to serious mental health issues on their campuses.
The second survey question addressed the school leaders’ perceptions about staff training
levels in responding to emergency situations. Over two thirds (78.58%) of the principals
indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that their staff are trained in protocols for
responding to incidents of potential violence, which would include weapons on campus.
Roughly 18 percent (17.86%) of the respondents were neutral on this query, while 3.57 percent
of the participants strongly disagreed that their staff are prepared to act in response to a
potentially violent school situation.
The third survey question concerning responding to school crises addressed relationships
and shared emergency protocols with community services organizations such as police, fire, and
mental health agencies. An overwhelming majority of the respondents (92.86%) agreed or
strongly agreed that their school sites have working relationships with community partners. The
remaining school leaders felt neutral (3.57%), or disagreed (3.57%) that their school has
established this practice.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 76

The final survey question related to research question number three focused on the
existence of support from the school district central office during a time of emergency. Nearly
all of the principal respondents (96.42%) indicated that their district offices served as part of
their network of support during school emergencies. A small minority (3.57%) responded that
they did not feel that their district office staff supported their school sites during a time of crisis.
The individual interviews each included thirteen questions specifically addressing
research question number three, on identifying what school leaders have learned about
responding to site emergencies. The interview queries focused on which staff members have
been specially trained to deal with mental health issues, what trainings these individuals have
received, who provided the trainings, and how often the trainings have been offered.
Additionally, the questions sought to discover the scope of communication between the school
and community partners, and the particular role of the school district central office during the
time of a campus crisis. The prominent themes that developed from these thirteen questions
included the critical need for clear and continuous communication between all parties, the
importance of relationships with community partners, the need for mental health counseling, and
the practice of contacting the county Psychiatric Mobile Response Team (PMRT). Quotations
excerpted from some of the principal interviews on responding to school emergencies are
showcased below.
Participant A1004 spoke to the importance of communication between the school and the district
office during a time of crisis:
I’m careful about only asking for help when it’s really needed. During those times, I can
call or text my people in the district office and get an immediate response. It’s been
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 77

really great-I tell them what the situation is and they ask me if I need more police, mental
health staff, etc. The person I talk with is a former high school principal so he gets it.
Participant A1005 added the following about the significance of communication, in this case
between students and their parents during a school emergency:
During a lockdown, I break protocol and have my teachers direct each of their students to
take out their cell phones and text their parents to let them know that they are safe, since
the word about lockdowns gets out quickly. That’s reassuring to parents and it actually
buys me some time. I use this opportunity to craft a phone message to parents. I let them
know that we are in lockdown and that it’s usually precautionary and assure them that our
students are safe. I’ll send a follow-up message when I have more details available. This
helps decrease parent anxiety and the number of phone calls coming in, and I’m able to
avoid having my office clerks answering questions. If calls from parents or the media do
come in, I’ll have a statement available for staff to read in lieu of answering questions-we
practice this regularly so my clerks are comfortable with this procedure.
With respect to the practice of contacting outside agencies for support, Participant P1001 shared
the following (clarification in parenthesis provided by the researcher):
Depending upon the situation, we may call the PMRT (Psychiatric Mobile Response
Team) but sometimes they are way too busy and won’t be able to come for hours. In
those cases, we call 911 and we work with the police to help a student. Or, in a recent
situation, we worked together to deal with a person who was mentally unstable who had
wandered onto campus. Either case, it’s critical that we have the support we need when
the situation is beyond what our staff can handle. It also helps that we have established
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 78

good working relationships with both members of the PMRT team and with our local law
enforcement.
One school leader shared a comprehensive crisis team manual which provided detailed
information for their team members in responding to school emergencies. The manual is based
on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Incident Command model in which
each of the crisis team members have been trained. Included in the binder are multiple
documents such as a team member responsibility chart, a form for generating action plans,
sample communication scripts for staff, students, community and the media, as well as
guidelines for organizing mental health counseling, and securing the campus. This model is
exceedingly organized and utilizes a system in which the district office provides support for the
campus emergency, while also assisting the site administration with the operation of the school
campus, as needed, during as well as beyond the crisis situation.
Research question four. The final research question sought to identify if school leaders have
plans in place to ensure the safety of individuals on their campuses with special needs and/or
language differences during a time of crisis. Individuals with language, physical, or cognitive
challenges can become extremely vulnerable during a campus emergency and their unique needs
ought to be considered when planning for and responding to potential and actual disaster
situations (Clarke et al., 2014; Council for Exceptional Children, 2013).
Two survey questions directly focused on research question four by inquiring if the
participant’s safety plan includes protocols for addressing the needs of individuals with
disabilities and/or language differences during a school emergency (See Figures 15 & 16).
Regarding individuals with disabilities, a majority of the respondents (85.92%) indicated that
their schools have protocols in place to support students and staff with special needs during a
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 79

campus crisis. Of the remaining respondents, two principals (7.14%) were neutral on this
question, and two principals (7.14%) disagreed with the statement that their school sites have
plans in place to address the needs of these specific populations in an emergency.
On the topic of addressing the needs of non-English speakers, fewer of the school leaders
(71.43%) agreed that their safety plans have identified procedures to assist these individuals
during a time of emergency. Several principals (14.29%) were neutral in their response to this
question, and 14.28 percent of the school administrators either disagreed or strongly disagreed
with the statement that their school sites have plans in place to support non-English speakers
during a crisis on campus.
The personal interviews with the school leaders included six questions pertaining to the
theme of the planned provision of assistance for both individuals with disabilities and/or English
learners. These questions inquired about any particular protocols which may be in place, how
these procedures are shared with staff, and how often these protocols are practiced. Themes that
emerged from these questions included the importance of communication between staff, the
necessity of having a clear knowledge of the unique needs of individual students, the need for
practice to ensure that trained staff is always available, and that staff must be able to demonstrate
an understanding of their roles during an emergency. Every principal interviewed indicated that
although procedures are not documented in their school safety plans, there are an adequate
number of Spanish bilingual staff on their sites who know to assist individuals who are not
English speakers during an emergency on campus. None of the principals currently have non-
English speaking students who speak a language other than Spanish.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 80

The needs of students with disabilities are diverse at every school campus. The following
statements provided by principals who were interviewed reflect examples of different types of
support established at their school sites for emergency situations.
Participant A1003 shared information about practices in place to ensure safety of students and
staff with special needs (clarification in parentheses provided by the researcher):
We’ve installed lights that flash in the classrooms for students who are deaf for when the
fire alarms are triggered. We also make certain that we have staff who clearly understand
the school safety plan and what their roles are during emergencies. Some of our students
have autism and will melt down when there are loud noises. We need to make sure we
have staff who know what to do when situations like these happen. We teach resiliency,
how to cope with certain situations, but you are always going to need to provide support.
Our staff knows what to do if students have seizures, and when to call 911, they know
which students will need assistance with exiting the buildings. We always develop a plan
with the parents and have charts in the room for staff to reference, if needed. Some of
our students require Diastat (seizure medication) and we have staff trained to administer
that, and to insert G-tubes (gastrostomy tubes) should they come out. Our staff are
trained in CPI (Crisis Prevention Intervention) and CPR (Cardiopulmonary
Resuscitation). Updated and easily accessible emergency cards are a must. If we have
to, we’ll call 911 or the PMRT (Psychiatric Mobile Response Team). Everybody has to
know what to do and when to do it-lives are at stake. We all carry radios and
communicate with them frequently. We also know that we have work to do after an
emergency, as well, so we plan for that. Our students will need support in recovering
from crisis situations.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 81

Participant A1006 shared what her school site has implemented to support individuals with life-
threatening allergies (clarification in parentheses provided by the researcher):
We train every teacher who has a child in their class with an extreme allergy on how to
administer an EpiPen (epinephrine injector), and we keep the EpiPens locked in those
classrooms. It’s too risky to rely on someone to bring the medication from the office in a
crisis situation.
Some students may be challenged due to health issues with having to wait outside during
mandatory evacuations in hot or inclement weather. Participant A1004 explained what has been
done on her campus to support such students:
We have tents and chairs that we purchased especially for students with special needs.
We also always have drinks and snacks on hand. Everybody knows it’s their job to make
sure our kids with special needs are taken care of and comfortable at all times, and
especially during emergency situations.
Discussion
The research on preventing, preparing for, and responding to school-based crises is
extensive and provides educators with case studies, manuals, guidelines, lessons, and models in
which to learn from and utilize to create, foster, and maintain a safe campus. Remarkably, the
literature available focuses primarily on just one of the elements of school safety; specifically,
what practices can be employed to establish a secure campus (prevention); or how to ensure that
campus staff and students are ready to handle emergencies (preparation); or how to respond to a
disaster once it has occurred (response). Principally, the current literature addresses only one of
these perspectives of school emergencies, of before, during, or after an event, in contrast with a
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 82

more holistic view of linking two or all three of these themes. This limitation carries over to the
state and the nation-wide level, resulting in an absence of a comprehensive national model of
school-based crisis preparedness (Boon et al., 2011; Clarke et al., 2014). School districts are left
to independently determine the amount of time and resources they are willing and able to invest
in practices, trainings, and policies to implement preventative measures, prepare for potential
catastrophic situations, and to respond effectively to emergencies once they have occurred
(Clarke et al., 2014).
The results of the 31 surveys from throughout California have confirmed that school-
based emergencies do in fact happen regularly, and that there is a range within school leaders’
perceptions as to how equipped their schools are with respect to preparing for and responding to
disasters occurring on their campuses. This concept was substantiated by the varying levels of
preparedness disclosed by the survey participants. The understanding that it is the school
principal who implements site emergency procedures as per district policies was reinforced by
both the survey and interview responses, as well as the recognition that the principal, through
his/her leadership, establishes the culture of a school and may choose to employ safety-related
practices above and beyond what may be mandated by the school district superintendent.
It should be noted that the participant response rate of the surveys was significantly lower
than what was anticipated or desired, although the researcher was ultimately successful in
obtaining the targeted number of participants. The desired response rate was between 50-60
percent (potentially resulting in 30-36 responses) from an initial outreach of 60 surveys. Yet, it
necessitated repeated mailings of a total of 118 surveys to obtain 31 usable responses, which
equated to a survey response rate of approximately 26 percent. Although the actual response rate
was discouraging, research has demonstrated that a low response rate does not necessarily
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 83

correlate with a statistically different result than from a high response rate (Davern et al., 2010;
Groves, 2006).
The themes that emerged from the six principal interviews revealed that the participants
possess a considerable level of confidence in handling certain types of school emergencies,
mainly those with which they have had personal experience. Furthermore, the school leaders
interviewed appeared to feel most comfortable with potential situations for which they have had
longstanding preparation, such as earthquakes and fires. None of the principals had encountered
the extreme circumstance of an active shooter on campus and could only surmise how best to
deal with this type of event since this is not an example of an emergency for which any of them,
except for one principal, have had training. Moreover, the interview participants each expressed
self-assurance with practices in handling a wide variety of situations occurring before, during, or
in response to school emergencies, despite the significant differences in the levels of experiences
and/or training that each of them had reported receiving. The six school leaders took complete
ownership of the operational responsibilities associated with each phase of a school-based
emergency. Participant A1004 summed it up with the following sentiment:
The number one responsibility of your job is to keep your school community safe. It’s
the principal’s responsibility to literally get out there and stop the shooter. Let’s hope
that if this happens, I come out on top.
The broad themes that emerged also established that the principals interviewed were
consistent in their beliefs in that communication between all stakeholders during a time of
emergency is essential; positive relationships with community partners must be formed; and that
the key to staying on top of crisis events is to thoughtfully and continuously plan and conduct
drills. Additionally, it was collectively stated that school districts should be strategic in ensuring
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 84

that each campus facility is safe, which would include, at a minimum, a fenced-in perimeter and
locked entrances. Support staff, such as counselors, psychologists, nurses, and mental health
workers (social workers) were regarded by the school leaders as critical partners for before,
during, and after a crisis event. Each principal also shared that having a realistic and judiciously-
crafted safe school plan is vital.
The literature consistently emphasized that it should be expected that school campuses
will experience some type of crisis, and that resources are abundantly available to districts
interested in acquiring knowledge in how to prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies
(Creapeau-Hobson & Summers, 2011). However, the survey and interview responses revealed
concurring with the research (Kano & Bourque, 2007), that school districts continue to focus
their resources on potential conventional disasters such as fires and earthquakes. None of the
principals interviewed could provide a definitive reason as to why their school districts have not
adopted more extensive training standards which would be inclusive of life-threatening crisis
situations that are significant, but that may not occur frequently. More than half of the principals
independently agreed that their school boards and/or superintendents may have concerns about
the reactions of their communities to providing training to students for possible violent
situations. These principals surmised that the apprehension conceivably stems from these types
of drills potentially invoking fear in staff, students, and their parents, and therefore it is a
deliberate choice to not pursue this type of preparation. Instead, as disclosed by the participants,
if these types of workshops are even offered at all, the trainings are provided only for a select
group of individuals, primarily mental health staff. If other employees are interested in seminars
on active shooters, or similarly perilous situations, they would need to seek out independent
agencies who offer these specialized training opportunities.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 85

Both, within the literature (Boon et al., 2011; Clarke et al., 2014; Creapeau-Hobson &
Summers, 2011; Skiba et al., 2000) and from the qualitative data which emerged from the
interviews, there is an undisputed recognition of the need for knowledge, preparation, and
resources to create and maintain safe campuses. The discrepancy between this supposition and
practice appears to be in whether or not school district leaders purposefully choose to acquire
safety-related information and training, and then follow-up with consistently implementing these
practices and procedures on their school campuses. Data from the principal interviews
confirmed that school leaders are often financially on their own should they desire to provide
training and resources for preparing for and responding to school disasters, beyond the fire and
emergency drills mandated by the state. Specialized support in the participants’ districts during
times of school crisis come from individuals (other than the principals) who have been trained;
typically social workers, nurses, and psychologists, or district office staff, and from community
partners such as the local police, emergency medical technicians, and the fire department.
The school leaders interviewed each revealed a high level of conviction in understanding
the scope of actual and potential emergency situations and in their abilities to handle most crisis
events, except for those instances of extreme violence, such as an active shooter on campus.
Collectively, the principals were not necessarily aware of the school safety practices identified
within literature, or what strategies other principals beyond their districts, or even within their
own districts employ during a time of crisis. Although each principal spoke to their established
emergency plans for students with special needs, only one principal participant was cognizant
that California Education Code language exists specifically addressing the mandate to have plans
in place for this population in the event of a school disaster. Each of the school leaders appeared
to be primarily self-reliant in relation to emergency events that may occur on their campuses.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 86

However, there was a unified agreement among the principals interviewed that their central
district offices and community partners would be ready, willing, and able to support them when
needed, but ultimately each school leader took it upon him or herself to implement safety-related
practices that speak to the unique needs of their individual campuses.
Each principal identified strategic and deliberate procedures and routines employed to
create a safe and harmonious campus, as part of a preventative measure against relatively minor
behavioral and interpersonal issues which could potentially develop into significant disasters.
These preventative practices differed greatly amongst the group, but it was abundantly clear that
each of the principals strongly endorsed the establishment of their particular school culture as a
factor in creating and fostering a safe campus community. The school leaders interviewed
acknowledged their central role in instituting and maintaining an environment in which
behavioral expectations are clear, where all individuals are respected, and where both academic
and emotional support is provided to those in need.
For emergency preparation purposes, the state of California mandates both regularly
scheduled fire and earthquake drills for schools, while other types of exercises are not
compulsory (California Department of Education, 2016b). Districts may elect to implement
drills more frequently than required, or to incorporate additional types of drills, although this was
optioned by only one of the principal interview participants. At the school site level, it was
verified by the interview participants that it is the principal who holds discretion on safety
matters and procedures beyond those required by law or by their districts’ Boards of Education.
Supplementary options for school emergency preparation can include the formation of
crisis teams, the establishment of relationships with community partners, and various safety-
related trainings for staff and students. Not unlike safe-preventative practices, each of the school
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 87

leaders interviewed has put into action procedures that are specific to their unique school
communities. This is a demonstration of leadership by the six principals in that they have taken
it upon themselves to protect individuals on their campuses by implementing safety-related
preparation practices above and beyond what is required by policy or law.
With respect to responding to campus emergencies, the principal interview participants
shared distinctive practices unique to their schools or districts, spanning from the utilization of
limited site resources and training, to being supported by a district-wide, highly trained, multi-
membered crisis team. Skiba et al., (2000) noted that principal initiated practices based on their
unique school communities can be significantly effective. Each principal expressed confidence
in their ability to access support from their district office or community partners, if needed,
reporting a range with respect to the scope and manner in which assistance would be provided to
their sites by the central office. Despite the differences in the amount of support available from
beyond their campuses, each principal interviewed expressed satisfaction with the expected level
of reinforcement from beyond their campuses that they believe would be provided during a
school crisis.
Every public school typically serves a percentage of individuals with special needs on
their campuses, typically about 12 percent in California (California Department of Education,
2016b). The schools represented by the interviewed principals align with this standard, apart
from the one interview participant who leads a high school with a 20 percent population of
students receiving special education services, and of the principal who leads a school where the
total population is comprised of students with special needs. As previously discussed,
individuals with disabilities can be particularly vulnerable during a time of crisis (Clarke et al.,
2014). Analogous to the data collected on the first three research questions, the evidence from
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 88

the principals interviewed regarding emergency practices in place for students with disabilities
differed with each campus, and were based upon the individual needs at each site. The six
principals once again demonstrated their leadership in putting practices into place centered upon
the unique needs of their campuses, by generating specific plans to serve their students with
disabilities during school emergencies. Dedicated plans to address the needs of students with
disabilities were described for all six schools represented by the principals, although the extent of
the details provided about these plans varied greatly among the interview participants.
There is relatively little research within the literature that addresses the needs of
individuals with language differences on school campuses during a time of emergency. This
subject is similarly reflected in the lack of documented plans as shared by the principals through
both the surveys and the personal interviews. Regardless, each of the six school leaders
interviewed were aware of potential safety needs and have established informal procedures in
which to provide support for this population, as necessary.
There is also an absence of focus within the literature on the training of students,
particularly secondary students to assist with providing support during a time of crisis. This
issue was addressed by two of the interviewed school leaders; one principal holds drills where
teachers are incapacitated and the students learn and practice survival strategies, and another
principal administers a campus sports medicine magnet program. The students in the magnet
program provide medical attention at school sporting events, as needed, under the supervision of
a trained medical professional. These students will also be called into service, as appropriate,
during school emergency situations. At the very least, it is a prudent practice to educate students
in emergency skills, and a concept to consider for secondary schools to recruit students who are
interested and capable of providing some level of assistance during a time of school crisis.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 89

Chapter Five presents a summary of the findings along with further conclusions and
implications of the research, along with recommendations for further research.

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 90

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
School emergencies can occur at any time and in various forms ranging from minor
sports injuries to an active shooter on campus, and everything in-between. School districts can
decrease their vulnerability by taking an active course in planning for potential disasters
(Creapeau-Hobson & Summers, 2011). Despite this option, approximately one third of public
school districts in the country do not regularly conduct drills associated with their school safety
plans, placing their campuses at increased risk for injuries, or worse. (Clarke et al., 2014).
The overall responsibility for the safety of every individual on a school campus rests with
the school leader, the principal. The school district central office and community partners which
include police, emergency medical technicians, and fire departments can provide assistance, but
the well-being of the students and staff on a daily basis, and during a time of crisis falls to the
school leader. Principals can bring about a safe environment and prevent many forms of crises
by strategically creating a setting in which behavior norms are established and consequences are
clear and just, and where a mutual respect exists between staff and students, and mental health
support is available, if needed (Cohen et al., 2009). In the event that emergency situations do
occur, school leaders can prepare for these experiences by regularly providing trainings and drills
for staff and students. Principals can also plan to ensure that resources are in place to address the
needs of those on campus during and after a crisis event, as students and staff may require
assistance through counseling or other services immediately after and well beyond a campus
emergency (Cowan & Rossen, 2014).
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 91

Restatement of the Problem
Nationally, school districts are significantly unprepared to keep their students and staff
safe during an emergency on campus (Kano & Bourque, 2007). To be proactive in protecting all
individuals on a school site, principals would need to create comprehensive plans in prevention,
planning, and response to a multitude of potential emergency situations with the goal of
mitigating the possibilities of disasters (Boon et al., 2011; Kano & Bourque, 2007). Although
the potential for severe injuries or deaths of students or staff exists, school leaders can serve an
active role in ensuring that these situations occur as infrequently as possible on their campuses
(Kano & Bourque, 2007).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to identify effective practices of
experienced school leaders with respect to preventing, planning for, and responding to school-
based crises. A thorough understanding of how principals keep their campuses safe, inclusive of
their students with disabilities and language differences, was pursued given that no national
model of school-based crisis preparedness currently exists (Boon, et al,. 2011; Clarke, et al.,
2014). For the purpose of this study, the term “crisis” refers to a significant event or emergency
occurring on a school campus, or a related event having a critical impact on a school community
such as a credible threat to the safety of those on campus, severe injury or death of a student or a
staff member, an act of violence, or a catastrophic environmental incident. The role of
leadership was examined in the context of understanding what skills veteran principals
demonstrate in maintaining a safe campus, as it is critical that site administrators have the ability
to successfully and collectively lead their staff in achieving the common goal of safety
(Maxwell, J. C., 2013; Northouse, 2010).
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 92

Interpretation of Key Findings
The literature on school safety provides extensive data and resources in a valuable, but
somewhat disconnected approach, compelling school districts and other interested parties to seek
information from multiple sources should they desire to comprehensively learn about strategies
and practices to prevent, prepare for, and to respond to school-based emergencies. The research
furnishes an expansive spectrum of primarily macro concepts in supporting school safety,
focusing on relevant, but broad-based practices and procedures. For example, the literature
presents a vast resource of research in preventative practices which can include Positive
Behavior Support Systems, or programs such as Character Counts! as recommended practices to
assist schools in creating safe campuses. There also exists a considerable amount of guidance
through research focusing on trainings and drills for schools that wish to prepare for potential
emergencies. With respect to responding to school-based crises, there is a substantial amount of
research on the resources and models schools could utilize to maintain safety during and after an
emergency event. The literature for preventing, preparing for, and responding to school
emergencies is abundant, although it is found in discrete in nature, with each piece of research
focusing on the time period of before, during, or after an event, while recommending a wide
array of generalized strategies and supports within a focused and specified timeframe that can be
implemented on any school campus.
As per principal feedback, there is a collective recognition of many of the
recommendations from the literature as these practices are included within existing school board
regulations and school safety plans. What emerged from the qualitative data from the individual
interviews was the micro models of school safety strategies and practices that veteran principals
independently implement based upon the needs of their unique school communities. These
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 93

practices that principals employ differ from what is found in the literature in that their procedures
apply to their specific communities and were designed to keep their particular campuses safe.
The six representative veteran principals expressed familiarity with many of safety
recommendations identified within research, although they also are knowledgeable about
numerous additional strategies which align with the unique needs of their school communities.
For example, one interview participant spoke about safety procedures she put in place for when
there is gang activity on campus, while another participant described his training for staff and
students used to ensure that all individuals need to walk very slowly to designated safe locations
when mountain lions are sighted on campus. Two very different practices, both generated by the
site school leaders to maintain safety within their particular schools. Consequently, the
foundation of student safety and campus security, in addition to the school safety
recommendations within research, is grounded within the culture created and the procedures put
into place by school leaders. The principals interviewed each independently took the initiative to
astutely craft and sustain a milieu which is driven by the safety and well-being for all individuals
on their campuses. As stated succinctly by Participant A1001:
Achievement, instruction, curriculum…they mean nothing if your campus is not safe.
Summary of Results
Research Question One
Research Question One asked, “From a school leader’s perspective, what has been
learned about practices on preventing crises on school campuses?” The four broad themes which
emerged from the qualitative data affirmed the research literature on this subject. Researchers
and school leaders agree that Positive Behavioral Intervention Supports (PBIS), secured campus
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 94

facilities, positive relationships with community partners, and relevant professional development
for staff are critical components in creating and maintaining a safe school campus (Clarke et al.,
2014; Cohen et al., 2009; Cowan & Paine, 2013; Creapeau-Hobson & Summers, 2011; O’Meara,
2014).
Each of the interviewed school leaders has intentionally and uniquely created school
environments and established relationships with community service providers to serve their
students in a manner which promotes the safety and well-being of students and staff.
Additionally, the six principals have collectively secured their campus facilities to the extent
possible and provide safety-related professional development opportunities for their staffs as a
matter of course.
Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “How have school district leaders learned to prepare
for crises on school campuses?” Two of the three themes that emerged align closely with current
research in that both researchers and the interviewed school leaders agree that psychologists and
mental health counselors are vital in preparing for school crises, and that the practice of regularly
holding a variety of emergency drills is necessary for a safe campus (Clarke et al., 2014; Cowan
& Paine, 2013; Freeman & Taylor, 2010; Kano & Bourque, 2007; NASP, 2016c) The third
theme that emerged from the principal interviews, but not necessarily found in literature was the
value of having comprehensive and sound school safety plans. This particular theme may be a
state-specific aspect in that California requires all schools to have a yearly updated safety plan
(California Department of Education, 2016b) whereas requirements may differ in other states.
This emerged theme did not contradict any data or recommendations found within the literature,
but instead added to this body of knowledge in a manner specific to California.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 95

Both the data from the survey results and from the personal interviews indicated that
principals feel confident that their staff has the ability to identify and address potential and actual
mental health concerns with students and staff. Moreover, the same group of principals
collectively agreed that their sites provide opportunities to practice emergency drills above and
beyond what is required by their school districts, which favorably differs from data on other
school districts represented within literature (Clarke et al., 2014.) This perhaps may be due to
the survey and interview participants all serving within California which is a state plagued by
earthquakes and therefore experiences a heightened awareness of the importance of emergency
drills.
Research Question Three
Research Question Three asked, “From a school leader’s perspective, what has been
learned about responding to crises on a school campus?” Three significant themes emerged from
the qualitative data, two of which affirmed the research in this area. The third theme, similar to
Research Question Two, is specific to California, which would account for this subject not being
aligned with the literature. The themes that developed for this question were the critical need for
clear and continuous communication during a school emergency (Cornell & Sheras, 1998;
Cowan et al., 2015; The National Traumatic Stress Network, 2005; Sattler et al., 2011), the need
for mental health support during and beyond a school crisis (Clarke et al., 2014; Cole et al.,
2013; Council for Exceptional Children, 2013; Cowan & Rosen, 2014; The National Child
Traumatic Stress Network, 2005) , and the common practice of contacting the county Psychiatric
Mobile Response Team (PMRT), a service offered by and within the county of Los Angeles,
California.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 96

There was a noteworthy difference in how prepared school leaders feel prior to an
emergency event as opposed to during an event. In both the surveys and interviews, principals
indicated a higher level of confidence with prevention and preparation practices than with crisis
response procedures. This could indicate that the school leaders are less assured with situations
they have not experienced, that more training in this area is needed, or possibly a combination of
the two. It could also indicate that the principals may feel that there are not sufficient protocols
in place to support their school sites during a significant school emergency.
Research Question Four
The final research question specifically addressed the needs of individuals with
disabilities and/or language differences by asking, “How do school leaders plan for individuals
with special needs (language, physical and/or cognitive disabilities) in a time of crisis?” The
themes that emerged from the data supported the literature in research and were not unlike the
themes that emerged from the other three research questions. These themes included the
importance of communication between staff, the necessity of knowing the unique needs of each
individual student, and that staff be able to demonstrate a clear understanding of their roles
during an emergency (Clarke et al., 2014; Council for Exceptional Children, 2013; Hoffman,
2009).
Although there was some discrepancy among both the survey participants and the
interviewees with respect to the scope of plans in place for both students with disabilities and
individuals who are speakers of languages other than English, all of the school leaders
interviewed described specific protocols at their sites to address both populations during a time
of crisis.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 97

Recommendations for Policy and Practice
Recommendation one. The researcher recommends that federal and state agencies create
comprehensive school emergency guidelines that include what districts should do to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to school emergencies. Furthermore, these guidelines should
incorporate protocols for individuals who are the most vulnerable during a time of crisis, those
students with disabilities and students who are not fluent in the English language. Experienced
school leaders should participate in the compilation of this resource to ensure to provide rich
examples of practices employed at their sites, as these unique strategies may be beneficial to
other principals.
Recommendation two. The researcher recommends that school districts be proactive in their
commitment to understand the literature on potential school crises and allocate the necessary
resources to ensure that staff and students are safe. This would be inclusive of support from
superintendents toward the principals’ responsibilities in establishing a safe school environment
though guidance, trainings, financial resources, and adequate personnel, including psychologists
and mental health professionals. Additionally, school superintendents should mandate that all
school districts regularly practice a variety of emergency drills, not only for fire and earthquakes,
but also for situations that occur less often, but are equally or more precarious, such as an active
shooter on campus.
Recommendation three. School districts should consider models in which students can help
during times of crisis. This should be contemplated carefully and strategically so as to offer
opportunities for mature students to assist in duties which are peripheral to the emergency, yet
provides support to those who are responding to a crisis.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 98

Recommendation four. School districts typically have veteran principals on staff and should
consider tapping into their experiences and knowledge base to support new school leaders who
are responsible for identifying and determining safety protocols for their sites. Devoting
designated time yearly for communication and collaboration on this topic may be very beneficial,
and may possibly reduce injuries and deaths resulting from a campus crisis.
Recommendations for Further Research
The researcher makes the following recommendations with respect to the participant
sample, methodology, and future studies.
Participant sample of the study. This study was conducted throughout California applying
quantitative and qualitative measures with a limited number of participants. The researcher
recommends expanding upon the participant sample to ascertain supplementary practices and
protocols used by school leaders to maintain safe campuses. Given that principals implement
practices based upon the individual needs on their campuses, an expansion of the participant
sample may serve to provide further examples of effective safety-related practices.
Methodology of the study. The invitation to school leaders to participate in the survey for this
study yielded a low response, despite repeated attempts via email to request principal
participation. The data collection process was extended by approximately one month beyond the
initial design due to the slow and low rate of survey responses. The researcher recommends first
communicating with potential participants by telephone to personally describe the study and
request that the principal respond to a forthcoming electronic survey. This strategy may increase
the number of participants, and the timeliness of responses, given a conversation was held and
that the potential participant agreed to respond during that personal connection.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 99

Future Studies. The researcher recommends an expansion of the study focus to include
superintendents and school board members to ascertain their perspectives, knowledge, and goals
with regard to school safety. Understanding their viewpoints would be beneficial with respect to
establishing an appraisal of what must be accomplished to bring all stakeholders to a common
stance on school safety, particularly given that financial resources are allocated by these
individuals.
Limitations
Upon completion of the study, the following potential limitations were revealed:
1. The case study method was not inclusive of the input of private or charter schools who
conceivably have addressed similar emergency situations with differences with respect to
availability of resources, experiences of the school leaders, and access to training
opportunities. It could be mutually advantageous to consider the experiences of these
groups. The case study method was also not inclusive of institutions of higher education.
Given that multiple incidents with violence have occurred at the university level in recent
years, it would be beneficial to understand how those in the field of higher education
address potential and actual crises on campuses.
2. This study focused on effective school-safety practices which requires a determination of
what is effective, and would a particular practice that is beneficial on one school campus
also be valuable in another school setting. These points at issue are relevant but were
beyond the scope of this study.
3. The response rate for the surveys was approximately 26 percent, a much lower rate than
the desired target of the 50-60 percent rate, although the researcher was able to obtain the
targeted number of total responses which ultimately was 31 school leader participants.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 100

Conclusion
This study has examined effective practices of school leaders prior to, during, and beyond
campus emergencies, particularly exploring the role of the principal throughout a crisis situation.
What has emerged is the recognition of a distinctive skill set that veteran school leaders possess
which is not addressed within the literature. Experienced principals have had the opportunity to
become adept at not only the complex day-to-day operations of their campuses, but also to
develop a meaningful understanding of their school community which allows them to identify
and address the unique needs of their students and staff as they strive to sustain secure and safe
campuses.
School leaders cannot guarantee the absence of all school emergencies, although they can
significantly transform their campuses into harmonious and safe environments with the support
of their staff, superintendents and boards of education. Principals require resources such as
planning time, facility upgrades, time and monies for professional development, and funding for
personnel to adequately plan, prepare, and maintain a safe school campus.
The findings within the literature and in this study reflect the amalgamation of
characteristics that define the role of leadership through the prevention, preparation of, and
response to school emergencies. The research describes the programs and approaches available
to support the development and maintenance of a campus culture of goodwill and harmony.
Nevertheless, it requires a principal with ardent leadership skills who understands their
constituents to successfully determine a vision for their school community, and to clearly
communicate that mission while supporting staff, students, and parents in collaboratively
working toward the attainment of the goal. True leadership requires a vision, intentionality,
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 101

connection with others, and common growth towards a goal (Maxwell, J. C., 2013; Northouse,
2010).
The research also identifies networking options and an abundance of training
opportunities beyond fire and earthquake drills to assist schools with preparing for school
disasters. However, a principal must possess the leadership necessary to determine which
trainings are appropriate, decide how often the trainings should occur, and recognize how to
supplement and fund those trainings to strategically address the needs of their particular
campuses. Successful school leaders consistently monitor the skill levels of staff to ensure that
the resources and services that staff provide will be available during a time of crisis. An
effective principal understands that this is a team pursuit because goals cannot be accomplished
without others, as one person is not in sole possess of all the answers or skills (Maxwell, J. C.,
2013). As such, effective school leaders build relationships with staff and parents, and outreach
to local community partners to develop and collaborate positively with clear and frequent
communications to ensure that when needed, their school site can be supported and protected.
Resources, strategies, and procedures in responding to school emergencies are widely
accessible within the research. Choosing what actions to take during and beyond a school crisis
can impact the lives of students and staff. Effective school leaders know their community and
have a clear understanding of the needs on their campuses when both planning ahead and making
decisions in the moment. For instance, an effectual school leader will take into consideration
prior to a crisis occurring the diverse needs of the individuals on the site, and will have identified
alternative procedures should certain students be unable to perform particular actions such as
independently exiting a building or running for cover. Successful school leaders will also
provide support to campus individuals beyond an actual crisis, such as mental health counseling.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 102

The role of leadership in a time of crisis is wide-ranging in that to most effectively ensure
the safety for a school campus a site principal will create an environment where the needs of the
whole child are addressed and respected. The successful school leader will take the time to
know the students and staff to facilitate the ability to plan preventative procedures to uphold a
level of safety for all individuals. The planning of emergency response procedures are then
grounded and driven by the understanding of the unique needs of the individuals on the campus.
The role of leadership during a school crisis is all-encompassing in that safety and
potentially the fate of students and adults is contingent on the culture that has been created, the
relationships that have been built, the training which has occurred, the specialized emergency
plans that have been established, and the ability to maintain a sense of calm during and beyond a
crisis event. In planning for campus emergencies, veteran principals have demonstrated that it
necessitates a skillful union of myriad of experiences and leadership skills to adeptly handle
situations that arise beyond the day-to-day school incidents. It is the ability of the school leader
to not only implement the safety practices mandated by their district and state, but to also
identify and employ protocols specific to their site. Both actions are critical in achieving the
overall safety of students and staff, as an absence of instituting required mandates or a failure to
engage protocols dedicated to the unique needs of the campus can result in injuries, or possibly
the death of students and staff. Districts are fortunate in that they have an abundance of
resources in their veteran school leaders who can share their knowledge and expertise in
identifying and implementing practices specifically designed to protect the staff and students on
their school sites.

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 103

References
Alba, D., & Gable, R. (2011). School safety planning: Barriers to implementation perceived by district
leadership and first responders. NERA Conference Proceedings 2012, Paper 11. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.uconn,edu/nera_2012/11
Booker L. (2014). Crisis management: Changing times for colleges, Journal of College Admission.
Winter (222). Retrieved from http://www.nacanet.org
Boon, H.J., Brown, L.H., Tsey, K., Speare, R., Pagliano, P., Usher, K., & Clark, B. (2011). School
disaster planning for children with disabilities: A critical review of the literature. International
Journal of Special Education, 26(3). Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ959015.pdf
Brunner, J., & Lewis, D. (2016). Safe and secure schools: Response to threats and acts of violence.
[PowerPoint Slides]. Los Angeles County Office of Education.
Retrieved from www.edu-safe.org
California Department of Education (2016a). Data quest. Retrieved from
www.cde.ca.gov/schooldirectory/
California Department of Education (2016b). Data quest. Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SpecEd/SpecEd1.asp?cChoice=SpecEd1&cYear=2016-
17&cLevel=State&cTopic=SpecEd&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit&ReptCycle=
December

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 104

California Legislative Information (2016). California Education Code § 32282 (a) (b). Article 5:
School Safety Plans. Retrieved from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§ionNum
=32282
Casa, D. J., Guskiewicz, K. M., Anderson, S. A., Courson, R. W., Heck, J. F., Jimenez, C. C., …
Walsh, K. M. (2012). National athletic trainer’s position statement: Preventing sudden death in
sports. National Athletic Association, Inc., 47(1): 96-118. Retrieved from http://www.nata.org/jat
Character Counts, (2016). Program Overview
Retrieved from http://charactercounts.org/program-overview/results-2/
Chung, S., Danielson, J., & Shannon, M. (2008). School-based emergency preparedness: a national
analysis and recommended protocol, (AHRQ publication no. 09-0013). Rockville, MD: Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality. Retrieved from
https://archive.ahrq.gov/prep/schoolprep/schoolprep.pdf
Clarke, L., Embury, D.C., Jones, R.E., & Yssel, N. (2014). Supporting students with disabilities during
school crises: A teacher’s guide. Teaching Exceptional Children. 46(6).
doi: 10.1177/0014402914534616
Cohen, J., McCabe, E., Michelli, N., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice,
and teacher education. Teachers College Record 111(1). Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bc23/cf121f260d2c589eb109115c32421a66dc0c.pdf
Cole, R., Hayes, B., Jones, D., & Shah, S. (2013). Coping strategies used by school staff after a crisis: A
research note. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 18. doi:10.1080/15324024.2012.719335
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 105

Connell, R., Eisenberg, L., & Niebuhr, D. (December 2015). School-based mental health services: What
California’s school district leaders should know about mental health funding and 2011
realignment. [Web log post]
Retrieved from http://www.cacommunityschools.org
Cornell, D., & Sheras, P. (1998). Common errors in school crisis response: Learning from our mistakes.
Psychology in the Schools. 35(3).
Council for Exceptional Children & Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. (2013). Helping
Students Cope with Traumatic Events—Tips for Educators. Arlington, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children. Retrieved from
https://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Files/Membership/TraumaticEvents_TipsforEducators.pdf
doi:10.1037/e736502011-001
Crepeau-Hobson, F., & Summers, L. (2011). The crisis response to a school-based hostage event: A case
study. Journal of School Violence. 10, doi:10.1080/1538820.2011.578277
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
research, (5
th
ed.). Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Pearson Education.
Cowan, K., & Paine, C. (2013). School Safety: What really works, Principal Leadership, 8(March).
Retrieved from
https://www.nasponline.org/Documents/Resources%20and%20Publications/Handouts/Families
%20and%20Educators/March_13_School_Safety.pdf

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 106

Cowan, K., & Rossen, E. (2014). Responding to the Unthinkable: School crisis response and recovery.
Phi Delta Kappan International 95(4), 13-17.
Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/003172171309500403
Cowan, K., Vaillancourt, K., Rossen, E., & Pollit, K. (2015). A framework for successful schools.
National Association of School Psychologists. Retrieved from www.nasponline.org
D’Andrea, M. (2004). Comprehensive school-based violence prevention training: A developmental-
ecological training model. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82(3), 277-286.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00311.x
Daniels, J., Bradley, M,. & Hays, M. (2007). The impact of school violence on school personnel:
Implications for psychologists. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 38(6), 652-659.
doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.6.652
Davern, M., McAlpine, D., Beebe, T. J., Ziegenfus, J., Rockwood, T., & Call, K. T. (2010). Are lower
response rates hazardous to your health survey?: An analysis of three state health surveys. Health
Services Research, 45(5), 1324-44.
DeGue, S. (2014). Evidence-based strategies for the primary prevention of sexual violence perpetration:
Preventing sexual violence on college campuses: Lessons from research and practice. White
House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault.
Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/prevention.html
Dillman, D.A. (2007). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, (4
th
ed.). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 107

Erwin, J.C. (2016). The school climate solution: Creating a culture of excellence from the classroom to
the staff room. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing, Inc.
Fink, A. (2009). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide, (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Freeman, W., & Taylor. M. (2010). Overview of emergency management exercises. Workshop
presented August 2010 at the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Final Grantee Meeting, National
Harbor, MD.
Retrieved from http://rems.ed.gov/docs/FY10_FGM_NHMD_EMExercises.pdf
Glesne, C. (2011). Prestudy tasks: Doing what is good for you. Qualitative research and educational
sciences: A reader about useful strategies and tools, 1-37.
Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion
Quarterly. 70(4), 646-75.
Gutek, G. L. (2009). New perspectives on philosophy and education. Columbus, OH: Pearson.
Harwood, M. (August 2007). Preventing the next campus shooting. Security Management. Retrieved
from www.securitymanagement.com
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2013). Social influences on cyberbullying behaviors among middle and
high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 711-722. doi:10.1007/s10964-
012-9902-4

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 108

Hoffman, S. (2009). Preparing for disaster: Protecting the most Vulnerable in Emergencies. Faculty
Publications. Paper 9.
Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/9
Kano, M., & Bourque, L. B. (2007). Experiences With and Preparedness for Emergencies and Disasters
Among Public Schools in California. NASSP Bulletin, 91(3), 201-218.
doi:10.1177/0192636507305102
Kataoka, S., Langley, A., Wong, M., Baweja, S., & Stein, B. (2012). Responding to students with
posttraumatic stress disorder in schools. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North
America, (21) 1, 119-133, Elsevier Inc.
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3287974/
Kiilakoski, T., & Oksanen, A. (2011). Soundtrack of the School Shootings: Cultural Script, Music and
Male Rage. Young, 19(3), 247-269. doi:10.1177/110330881101900301
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. (1
st
ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Low, L. (2008). You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know: Choices for school administrators when
crisis hits. CAPEA Education Leadership and Administration, 20, 101-108. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ965143.pdf
Madfis, E. (2013). Averting school rampage: Student intervention amid a persistent code of silence.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 12(3), 229-249. doi:10.1177/1541204013497768
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to
results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 109

Maxwell, J. C. (2013). How successful people lead: Taking your influence to the next level. New York,
NY: Hachette Book Group.
Maxwell. J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach, (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. (4
th
ed.),
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence
from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Journal of School Health, 72: 138–146.
doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2002.tb06533.x
National Association of School Psychologists (2016a). Research Citations: Academic mental health
links. Retrieved from
https://www.nasponline.org/research-and-policy/nasp-research-center/research-citations
National Association of School Psychologists (2015b), Threat assessment at school: Facts and tips.
Retrieved from https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources/school-safety-
and-crisis/threat-assessment-at-school
National Association of School Psychologists (2016c). Conducting crisis exercises & drills: Guidelines
for schools.
Retrieved from https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/ resources/school-safety-
and-crisis/conducting-crisis-exercises-and-drills

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 110

National Child Traumatic Stress Network (2005). The 3R’s of school crisis and disasters: readiness,
response, and recovery. Retrieved from
http://www.nctsn.org/resources/audiences/school-personnel/the-3r-school-crises-and-disasters
Newman, K., & Fox, C. (2009). Repeat tragedy: Rampage shootings in American high school and
college settings, 2002-2008. American Behavioral Scientist. 52(9), 1286-1308.
doi: 10.1177/0002764209332546
Nickerson, A., Brock, S., & Reeves, M. (2006). School Crisis Teams within an Incident Command
System.. The California School Psychologist, 11. 63-72.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ902519.pdf
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice, (5
th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
O’Meara, S.P. (2014). School security design: Planning to mitigate risk and avoid liability. The
Construction Lawyer, 34(1). Retrieved from
http://www.olwklaw.com/docs/School_Security_Design_(Shamus_P._O_Meara).pdf
O’Neill, D., Fox, J., Depue, R., & Englander, E. (2008). Campus violence prevention and response: Best
practices for Massachusetts higher education. Applied Risk Management report to Massachusetts
Department of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.mass.edu/bhe/lib/reports/CampusViolencePreventionAndResponse.pdf
Pace, P. (2014). School violence solutions: Social workers focus on mental health aspect. NASW News,
59(6). Retrieved from http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/news/2014/06/school-violence-
solutions.asp
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 111

Patton, D., Hong, J., Ranney, M., Patel, S., Kelley, C., Eschmann, R., & Washington, T. (2014).
Social media as a vector for youth violence: A review of the literature. Computers in Human
Behavior, 35, 548-553. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.043
Perumean-Chaney, S. E., & Sutton, L. M. (2012). Students and perceived school safety: The impact of
school security measures. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 570-588.
doi:10.1007/s12103-012-9182-2
Raywid, M.A., & Oshiyama L. (2000). Musings in the wake of Columbine: What can schools do? Phi
Beta Kappan, 81(6), 444-449.
Sattler, D., Larpenteur, K., & Shipley, G. (2011). Active shooter on campus: Evaluating text and email
warning message effectiveness. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management:
8(1), doi:10:2202/1547-7355.1826
Smith, L., & Riley, D. (2012). School leadership in times of crisis. School Leadership & Management,
32(1), 57-71. doi:10.1080/13632434.2011.614941
Skiba, R., Boone, K., Fonranini, A., Wu, T., Strussell, A., & Peterson, R. (2000). Preventing school
violence: A practical guide to comprehensive planning. Safe and Responsive Schools Project,
Indiana Education Policy Center.
Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED479077.pdf
Stein, B. D., Kataoka, S. H., Hamilton, A. B., Schultz, D., Ryan, G., Vona, P., & Wong, M. (2010).
School personnel perspectives on their school’s implementation of a school-based suicide
prevention program. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 37(3), 338-349.
doi:10.1007/s11414-009-9174-2
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 112

Syvertsen, A. K., Flanagan, C. A., & Stout, M. D. (2009). Code of silence: Students' perceptions of
school climate and willingness to intervene in a peer's dangerous plan. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 101(1), 219-232. doi:10.1037/a0013246
Syrjalainen, E., Jukarainen, P., Varri, V., & Kaupinmaki, S. (2015). Safe school day according to the
young. Young, 23(1), 59-75. doi:10.1177/1103308814557399
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2001). How to plan for
workplace emergencies and evacuations. (OSHA 3088).
Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3088.html
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2016). Incident
Command System Resources.
Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/incident-command-system-resources
Wong, M. (2008). Interventions to reduce psychological harm from traumatic events among children
and adolescents: A commentary on the application of findings to the real world of schools.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(4), 398-400. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.07.002
Zhe, E.J., & Nickerson, A.B. (2007). The effects of an intruder crisis drill on children’s self-perceptions
of anxiety, school safety, and knowledge. School Psychology Review, 36, 501-508.
Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/spr/abstract.aspx?ID=1850

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 113

Appendix A
Principal Survey Protocol

Hello!

My name is Ruth Valadez and I am a director of Special Education, as well as a doctoral candidate at the University
of Southern California researching what practices school leaders have found effective in keeping their campuses
safe.

The title of my dissertation is:
Leadership in the Time of Crisis:
Preventing, Preparing For, and Responding to School-Based Crises

The purpose of this survey is to identify the real-world experiences of veteran administrators and what practices they
have found to be effective in handling school site emergencies. A mixed method study of both quantitative and
qualitative utilizing a survey and personal interviews was chosen for this study because the data from these different
perspectives can provide distinctive and deeper understanding of the subject than just using one method.
Below is a link to a very brief survey. I'm hoping that you can take 2-3 minutes to participate, as your input is critical.

I thank you in advance for your support with my research-I am very appreciative to the time you take to respond to
this survey-I know that your time is valuable.

If you have any questions about the survey or would like a copy of my findings, please email me at XXXXXXX
(student’s email address) to let me know.

Thank you so much.

Ruth Valadez

Disclaimer: Your participation in this survey is voluntary. Your survey answers will be sent to a link at
SurveyMonkey.com where data will be stored in a password protected electronic format. Your name, the name of
your school, or the name of your district will not be published in my dissertation or in any other document.

I have served as a school administrator for at least three years

○ Agree
○ Disagree

You will be directed to the SurveyMonkey site upon answering this question.

.

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 114

Appendix B

Principal Survey Questions

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

1. I have served as a school administrator for at least three years.

2. I have experienced a campus emergency or crisis situation while serving as a school
administrator.

3. Positive Behavior Intervention Supports (PBIS) contribute to creating a safe
environment on my campus.

4. My campus has physical security measures (facility) which promote school safety.

5. My school culture has positively impacted school safety.

6. My staff is effectual in identifying mental health warning signs in students and adults
on campus.

7. My students are knowledgeable in specific protocols for a variety of school
emergencies.

8. My site and school district have created emergency and safety procedures above and
beyond the mandated earthquake and fire drills.

9. My teachers and administrative staff possess the skills to lead students through
emergency and safety procedures for a variety of emergency situations.

10. My school staff is capable of responding effectively to mental health issues such as
suicidal or homicidal ideation.
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 115

11. My school staff is trained in protocols for responding to incidents of potential
violence or actual violence, such as a weapon on campus.

12. My school has an existing relationship with community services (I.e.: police/fire
department) that includes protocols for responding to school site emergencies.

13. My network of support in response to school emergencies includes the school district
office.

14. My school safety plan includes protocols for addressing the needs of individuals with
disabilities during a school emergency.

15. My school plan includes protocols for addressing the needs of non-English speakers
during a school emergency.

16. Do you have any documents related to school safety (training agendas, protocols,
bulletins/memos, power points, etc.) that you would be willing to share?

17. Would you be willing to be personally interviewed on the subject of preventing,
planning for, and responding to school emergencies?

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 116

Appendix C
Principal Interview Protocol
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
CONSENT FORM FOR INTERVIEW PARTICIPATION

Study Title: Leadership in the Time of Crisis: Preventing and Planning for Crises on a School Campus

My name is Ruth Valadez and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California, in the
Rossier School of Education, and am interviewing school leaders for a dissertation study, which I invite
you to take part in. This form has important information about the reason for doing this interview, and
the way I will use information from you, if you choose to participate.
You are being asked to participate in an interview for a dissertation study about your experiences as a
site administrator and how you perceive effective practices for establishing and maintaining safety on a
school campus. Your participation is voluntary.
The purpose of the dissertation study is to add to the current body of knowledge of school safety, and
provide information to school leaders on ways to prevent and prepare for crisis events on a school
campus.
Should you choose to participate, you will receive a $30.00 Amazon gift card at the end of the interview
in appreciation of your time.

What will I do if I choose to be in this interview?
You will be asked to answer approximately 40 questions regarding the topic of school safety. The
interview will take approximately one hour. Interviews will take place at your school site or at a
mutually agreed upon location.
I would like to audio-record this interview to make sure that I have an accurate record all the
information you provide. I will store these tapes on my computer and they will only be used by me. If
you prefer not to be audio-recorded, I will take notes instead. You may choose to not answer any of the
questions asked of you. You do not need to provide a reason for not answering any question.

What will the information from the interview used for?
Interview responses will be used solely for the purpose for data collection which will be submitted as
part of a doctoral dissertation about school safety. Your name or the name of your school site will not
be used in any document that will be submitted to the university. Responses will not be published or
used for any other document or dissertation.

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 117

Consent
I have read this form and the research study has been explained to me. I have been given the
opportunity to ask questions and my questions have been answered. I will receive a copy of this signed
consent form.
Please initial the following to indicate your choices:
______ I agree to participate in the interview for the doctoral study.
______ I do not agree to participate in the interview for the doctoral study.

______ I agree to be audio-recorded.
______ I do not agree to be audio recorded

____________________________________ _____________________________ ____________
Participant’s Name (printed) Participant’s Signature Date

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 118

Appendix D
Principal Interview Questions

1. How long have you held the position of a school administrator?

2. Please describe any emergencies or crises you have experienced while serving as a school
administrator.

3. What types of Positive Behavior Intervention Supports (PBIS) have you implemented on
your campus?

4. How do you think these systems have created a safer school environment?

5. Please describe any physical security measures (facility) on your campus that you feel
have promoted school safety.

6. Please describe how your school culture has contributed to the safety of your campus.

7. How does your staff identify mental health warning signs in students and adults on
campus?
8. What skills do your students have in carrying out practices in response to school
emergencies?

9. How did your students acquire these skills?

10. How often are these skills practiced?

11. What emergency and safety procedures does your school have in place other than
earthquake and fire drills?

12. How did these procedures come to be?

13. What practices are in place to keep staff and students current on these procedures?

14. What skills does your staff possess with regard to carrying out safety protocols during a
time of emergency?
Leadership in the Time of Crisis 119

15. What specific trainings have your staff received for emergency response?

16. Who provides these trainings?

17. How often do these trainings occur?

18. Which staff members are trained in mental health issues and how to respond to needs in
this area?

19. What training have these staff members received?

20. Who has provided this training?

21. What is the protocol at your site if a student demonstrates homicidal ideation? Suicidal
ideation?

22. What trainings have your staff received in responding to incidents of potential or actual
violence on your campus?
23. Who has provided this training?

24. How often has this training occurred?

25. What communication do you have with your community service providers (PD/FD/etc.)
regarding support during a time of emergency?

26. How often do these communications occur, and how do they occur?

27. How do these agencies support your school during a time of emergency?
28. What role does the district office play during the time of a school emergency?

29. How adequate do you feel the support is from your district office?

30. Can you offer any recommendations on how this role can be increased, decreased, or
changed in any way to be more helpful?

31. What protocols are in place for addressing the needs of individuals with disabilities
during a school emergency?

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 120

32. How are these protocols shared with the staff who will be addressing the needs of
individuals with disabilities during a crisis?

33. How often are these protocols practiced?

34. What protocols are in place for addressing the needs of non-English speakers during a
school emergency?

35. How are these protocols shared with the staff who will be addressing the needs of non-
English speakers during a crisis?

36. How often are these protocols practiced?

37. Do you have any additional practices or procedures in place that we have not yet
discussed that you feel have been effective in preventing, preparing for, and responding
to school emergencies?

38. Are there any added supports that could come from within or beyond your district that
would further assist your site in a time of crisis?

39. Do you have any additional recommendations stemming from your personal experience
that you feel would be helpful for other school leaders with regard to handling
emergencies on a school campus?

40. Is there anything else you would like to add on the subject of school safety?

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 121

Figures 2-18
Survey Question Results
Question 1: I have served as a school administrator for at least three years. (n=31)

Figure 2: Survey Question One

Question 2: I have experienced a campus emergency or crisis situation while serving as a school
administrator. (n=28)

Figure 3: Survey Question 2

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 122

Question 3: Positive Behavior Intervention Supports (PBIS) contribute to creating a safe
environment on my campus. (n=28)

Figure 4: Survey Question 3

Question 4: My campus facility has physical security measures which promote school safety.
(n=28)

Figure 5: Survey Question 4

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 123

Question 5: My school culture has positively impacted school safety on my campus. (n=28)

Figure 6: Survey Question 5

Question 6: My staff is effectual in identifying mental health warning signs in students and
adults on campus. (n=28)

Figure 7: Survey Question 6

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 124

Question 7: My students are knowledgeable in specific protocols for a variety of school
emergencies. (n=28)

Figure 8: Survey Question 7

Question 8: My site and school district have created emergency and safety procedures above and
beyond the mandated earthquake and fire drills. (n=28)

Figure 9: Survey Question 8

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 125

Question 9: My teachers and administrative staff possess the skills to lead students through
emergency and safety procedures for a variety of emergency situations. (n=28)

Figure 10: Survey Question 9

Question 10: My school staff is capable of responding effectively to mental health issues such as
suicidal or homicidal ideation. (n=28)

Figure 11: Survey Question 10

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 126

Question 11: My school staff is trained in protocols for responding to incidents of potential
violence, such as a weapon on campus. (n=28)

Figure 12: Survey Question 11

Question 12: My school has an existing relationship with community services (i.e., police/fire
department) that includes protocols for responding to school site emergencies. (n=28)

Figure 13: Survey Question 12

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 127

Question 13: My network of support in response to school emergencies includes support from
the school district office. (N=28)

Figure 14: Survey Question 13

Question 14: My school safety plan includes protocols for addressing the needs of individuals
with disabilities during a school emergency. (n=28)

Figure 15: Survey Question 14

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 128

Question 15: My school plan includes protocols for addressing the needs of non-English
speakers during a school emergency. (n=28)

Figure 16: Survey Question 15

Question 16: Do you have any documents related to school safety that you would be willing to
share? (n=28)

Figure 17: Survey Question 16

Leadership in the Time of Crisis 129

Question 17: Would you be willing to be personally interviewed on the subject of effective
practices for preventing, planning for, and responding to school emergencies? (n=28)

Figure 18: Survey Question 17

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Disasters on school campuses can occur at any time and school leaders must be prepared to handle a variety of potential emergencies to protect their campuses. Research identifies definitive steps that can be taken to decrease the chances of school crises. This mixed methods study focused on current research and on the beneficial practices that veteran school leaders in California have identified and implemented to address the prevention, preparation for, and response to school emergencies. There were four research questions for this study: (1) From a school leader’s perspective what has been learned about preventing crises on school campuses?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Strengthening leadership during times of school emergencies

PDF

Effective leadership practices of catholic high school principals that support academic success

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

The benefits of mentorship to new high school assistant principals and principals

PDF

Elements of a 1:1 computer laptop program in a Los Angeles County high school and implications for education leaders

PDF

Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts: a case study

PDF

Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in the Inland Empire

PDF

A case study: how a high performing school in a predominantly Hispanic community is curtailing the dropout rate through principal leadership and school organization

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

Pivotal positions, critical experiences, and preparation programs in the career paths of superintendents

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

The benefits of mentorship to new high school assistant principals and principals

PDF

Preparing the next generation of global leaders: how principals in international studies high schools promote global competence

PDF

Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

PDF

Obstacles to and motivations for women pursuing and serving in academic leadership positions in STEM fields at California universities

PDF

Examining Hispanic students' access to AP courses in high schools in Orange County

PDF

Influence of SciFest on Irish students in developing interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and 21st-century skills in preparation for competing in a global economy

PDF

Teacher self-efficacy and instructional coaching in California public K-12 schools: effective instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher...

PDF

Principal leadership -- skill demands in a global context

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

Asset Metadata

Creator Valadez, Ruth Ann (author)

Core Title The role of leadership in a time of crisis: preventing, preparing for, and responding to crises on a school campus

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/06/2017

Defense Date 08/28/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag crisis preparedness,crisis prevention,crisis response,OAI-PMH Harvest,school crises,school emergencies,school safety

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Garcia, Pedro E. (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee member), Wiedofft, Oryla Marie (committee member)

Creator Email ruthonbuckingham@gmail.com,rvaladez@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-442531

Unique identifier UC11265716

Identifier etd-ValadezRut-5822.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-442531 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ValadezRut-5822.pdf

Dmrecord 442531

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Valadez, Ruth Ann

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA